Abortion

[palerider]

We are not dealing with "two wrongs making a right" we are dealing with the lesser of two evils.

Punishing a rapist to the extent that the law allows is more evil than killing a child who has comitted no crime so it is better to kill the child?

You have not suggested any way to deal with 1,000,000 unwanted babies in this country every year EXCEPT YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO GET AN ABORTION. That begs the question you don't want to address: who will care for all those babies, we know it won't be you because you have already said that you have NOT adopted any unwanted babies, so it's easy to see how deep your compassion for their suffering goes.

Your point would be valid mare, IF, you were also suggesting that we go about killing those who we know for a fact are unwanted and unloved and are a burden on our resources. You aren't suggesting killing everyone who is unwanted and unloved and is a burden on the rest of us but just a particular sub group of those who are unloved, unwanted and a burden. That renders your argument invalid. If you can't make an argument that applies equally to all human beings, you are just like all of the other historical figures who seperated one group out from the rest to dehumanize and kill as they wished.

I would like to see the killing stopped, but it won't be done by blaming women and passing laws to force them to clean up after men. You have more credibility discussing torture, at least it's something you can do or perhaps have done. Dealing with being raped and forced to carry an unwanted child is something for which you are not able to speak with authority.

How else do you stop a thing besides making it against the law mare? That is one of the most irrational statements you have made so far. Do you believe we would have less killing if we erased the murder laws off the books? And suggesting that I can not speak to a thing unless I have done it is patently rediculous. If that is true, by what authority do you speak on torture?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You said that you didn't call me a liar. Hmmm. I think what's happening is that when you can't figure out what I'm saying you assume I must be lying or somesuch. Good technique.

If he called you a liar, then just bring it forward. End this little side argument right now.

This last paragraph here is an example of why I won't continue to talk to you. What I said very clearly is that women are often put in an intolerable situation by men and we are always the ones who have to clean up after you. Even in cases of rape, you still maintain that women have no rights--in essence we are breeding machines who must perform for whichever man manages to impregnate us. You will never stop abortions by attacking women, the dictator of Romania tried and he killed a lot us and in so doing ended up with whole buildings full of unwanted children dying for lack of care, I think killing a child with neglect is worse that killing a fetus. We are not dealing with "two wrongs making a right" we are dealing with the lesser of two evils. You have not suggested any way to deal with 1,000,000 unwanted babies in this country every year EXCEPT YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO GET AN ABORTION. That begs the question you don't want to address: who will care for all those babies, we know it won't be you because you have already said that you have NOT adopted any unwanted babies, so it's easy to see how deep your compassion for their suffering goes.

This argument really never made much sense to me. Some of the most important Americans in history have overcome poor childhoods to rise to greatness. In essence you're saying "the child might not have an ideal childhood, so let's just kill him instead."

I would like to see the killing stopped, but it won't be done by blaming women and passing laws to force them to clean up after men. You have more credibility discussing torture, at least it's something you can do or perhaps have done. Dealing with being raped and forced to carry an unwanted child is something for which you are not able to speak with authority.

Issues don't have genders.

 

[Coyote]

Issues don't have genders.

When issues involve genders then yes,they do.

 

[palerider]

When issues involve genders then yes,they do.

Half of those who are killed are male.

The fact that the killers are women isn't germain to those being killed any more than it would matter to you whether you were killed by a man or a woman.

You still haven't answered the fact that since 1972, the total number killed is approaching 2 billion. TWO BILLION!!

 

[Coyote]

Half of those who are killed are male.

The fact that the killers are women isn't germain to those being killed any more than it would matter to you whether you were killed by a man or a woman.

On the other hand it is ownership and control of a woman's body - her most intimit self - that is at issue as well. In no other situation does another human or group of humans attempt to control a person's body against her will.

You still haven't answered the fact that since 1972, the total number killed is approaching 2 billion. TWO BILLION!!

I can not answer it because I am caught in a fundamental dilemna plain and simple - between two opposing issues. I am unwilling to relinquish control of my body to any other person - any - against my will. If that is so - how could I ask someone else to do the same via the law?

 

[palerider]

On the other hand it is ownership and control of a woman's body - her most intimit self - that is at issue as well. In no other situation does another human or group of humans attempt to control a person's body against her will.

We are neither own our bodies nor are we immune to law that tells us what we may or may not do with our bodies. And again, your reason is just one of the many that have been put forward in history that makes "that" group different and OK to kill. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

I can not answer it because I am caught in a fundamental dilemna plain and simple - between two opposing issues. I am unwilling to relinquish control of my body to any other person - any - against my will. If that is so - how could I ask someone else to do the same via the law?

Your dilemma is a false one. Law already imposes on your "control" of your body so arguing that you are unwilling to relinquish control is pointless. Since it is clear that law already exists that places controls over what you can and can't do with your body, and you are not complaining about those laws, your argument is that you won't relinquish control to "this group" and would rather kill them than have it so. While you wrestle with your false dilemma, the number grows ever closer to 2 billion. Two billion coyote. Each and every one was a human being that only had one opportunity to live the life that we all get to live for better or worse.

 

[Coyote]

We are neither own our bodies nor are we immune to law that tells us what we may or may not do with our bodies. And again, your reason is just one of the many that have been put forward in history that makes "that" group different and OK to kill. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

But you are likewise singling out one group of humans and making a special case of them by applying laws on them that do not apply to any other group. In fact - is that not "dehumanizing" them to the status of broodmares?

Your dilemma is a false one. Law already imposes on your "control" of your body so arguing that you are unwilling to relinquish control is pointless. Since it is clear that law already exists that places controls over what you can and can't do with your body, and you are not complaining about those laws, your argument is that you won't relinquish control to "this group" and would rather kill them than have it so. While you wrestle with your false dilemma, the number grows ever closer to 2 billion. Two billion coyote. Each and every one was a human being that only had one opportunity to live the life that we all get to live for better or worse.

No it isn't false at all. I can not acquiesce to any law that forces control of my own body from me. I see it as little different from slavery. Laws exist which may place limits on what I can do with my body - but those laws apply equally to all human beings. You are making an exception of one group of human beings and subjecting them to a law that applies to no other. You are forcing one group of human beings to relinquish control of their bodies and life - their very selves - to other humans. No other group of humans is forced to do this.

 

[Pidgey]

Impasse. Try, just for the fun of it, to hammer out the principles of a law that would satisfy both sides, that all would agree on--one that would prevent the need for an abortion to begin with. Think of it as a license to mate and contract for same, complete with punishments for failure to comply. Start with something basic that doesn't address some poor girl getting raped by her Troglodyte brother. You can add that later when the ceasefire has been declared.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If he called you a liar, then just bring it forward. End this little side argument right now.

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
"You are lying mare. You are unable to argue my points, so you make up lies in an effort to deflect the discussion away from your inability to argue the points." Quote from post #267 by Pale Rider on the abortion thread. Thus I refute his repeated statement that he has not called me a liar.

This argument really never made much sense to me. Some of the most important Americans in history have overcome poor childhoods to rise to greatness. In essence you're saying "the child might not have an ideal childhood, so let's just kill him instead."
Issues don't have genders.

Rider's number was, I think, 4,000,000 aborted babies in the last several years. What I asked is who will care for them. Already babies are being dumped into garbage cans and dumpsters. My position is that you cannot force unwilling parents to care for unwanted babies--as the Romanian dictator demonstrated so clearly--and that aborting unwanted babies is better than what happens to many unwanted babies at the hands of angry parents.

I realize that you side with Rider on this, fine, have a beer and revel in your agreement, but you cannot end abortions by continuing to beat up on women. The abortion issue will have to be addressed on the other end by preventing pregnancy and simply blaming women and taking away their rights won't help. I sorry that neither one of you can figure that out, but that's the beauty of reincarnation, you'll get to find out first hand. Enjoy!

 

[palerider]

But you are likewise singling out one group of humans and making a special case of them by applying laws on them that do not apply to any other group. In fact - is that not "dehumanizing" them to the status of broodmares?

I am not singling out anyone biology did. Law that protects the lives of innocent children is not law applied on or against women anymore than laws that protect the lives of obnoxious neighbors is law applied on or against me. (I have one). And spare me the emotional "broodmare" appeal. You are better than that. Broodmares are property. They are held in place while they are impregnated (for profit) by another horse, owned by their owner or another owner or by artificial insemination (for profit). Is that really how you see women?

No it isn't false at all. I can not acquiesce to any law that forces control of my own body from me.

Of course it is. And you already do. That is exactly why your dilemma is a false one.

I see it as little different from slavery. Laws exist which may place limits on what I can do with my body - but those laws apply equally to all human beings. You are making an exception of one group of human beings and subjecting them to a law that applies to no other. You are forcing one group of human beings to relinquish control of their bodies and life - their very selves - to other humans. No other group of humans is forced to do this.

No other group is able to do this Coyote. Law that regulates and enforces paternity on men singles out men. It isn't that the law is angry or vengeful towards men, but when women get pregnant, some how, some way, a man was involved and the law has the power to force him to do the right thing or punish him if he won't. By definition, paternity law must target men. There is a body of law that effects only men or women not because it is targetinig a particular group but because by definition it can not apply to the other.

 

[palerider]

Impasse. Try, just for the fun of it, to hammer out the principles of a law that would satisfy both sides, that all would agree on--one that would prevent the need for an abortion to begin with. Think of it as a license to mate and contract for same, complete with punishments for failure to comply. Start with something basic that doesn't address some poor girl getting raped by her Troglodyte brother. You can add that later when the ceasefire has been declared.

We already have it. It is contained in the decond clause of the first section of the 14th amendment.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

If a woman can show just cause why the child she is carrying should forfiet its life, then terminate the pregnancy. The only just cause I can think of is that her life or long term health is in iminent danger. Perhaps there are other valid reasons but aside from life and long term health, everything else I can come up with amounts to no more than convenience.

 

[palerider]

I realize that you side with Rider on this, fine, have a beer and revel in your agreement, but you cannot end abortions by continuing to beat up on women.

You can't end murder by making murder illegal. You can't end arson by making arson illegal. You can't end robbery by making robbery illegal. You can't end assault by making assault illegal. YOU CAN'T END ANYTHING BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL BUT WE DON'T STRIKE THE LAWS FROM THE BOOKS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DO A THING IN SPITE OF THE LAW.

Consider this mare. Paternity laws are aimed at men. We have laws that can make men responsible for thier children and can punish them if they don't accept that responsibility. Clearly the law has not ended male irresponsibility. Do you believe that we should strike the paternity laws from the books because they don't make all men responsible for their children? Clearly the laws can't make all of us responsible so what is the use of keepiing them on the books?

 

[Pidgey]

Get Draconian. Require all males to register their DNA so that the father can be easily found for any unclaimed baby that pops up. If that father is a bachelor, then force them to live together until the baby's grown up and out of the house. If the father's already got a family, he loses his procreative equipment. Marriage is final until the children are out of the house.

That might stop an awful lot of casual sex. Might even slow illegal immigration. Might even run a lot of other folks off who we don't really want anyhow.

 

[palerider]

Get Draconian. Require all males to register their DNA so that the father can be easily found for any unclaimed baby that pops up. If that father is a bachelor, then force them to live together until the baby's grown up and out of the house. If the father's already got a family, he loses his procreative equipment. Marriage is final until the children are out of the house.

Enforcing laws as they already exist is draconian? If you father a child, you have a responsibility for that child. I wouldn't mind at all seing the law lower the boom on men who father children and try to remain unaccountable. Some years ago, there was enough doubt with regard to who fathered a child that there was some wiggle room. Not so today.

I can't say that I favor registering DNA. That assumes guilt before any "crime" is comitted.

 

[Pidgey]

I can't say that I favor registering DNA. That assumes guilt before any "crime" is comitted.

Think of it as a deterrent to make the consequences so unthinkable that a guy'll either keep it in his pants or his hand. Even alcohol abuse might drop like a rock.

Let's let the feminine persuasion weigh in.