Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Farb]

So you’re saying you can’t tell.

Since Roe is about to be shot down and everyone is claiming 'women' are being enslaved, who are these women? Are they all who identifty as a woman or are we specifically discussing women that have the ability to give birth? It seems like the abortion issue and trans rights are kind of mutually exclusive, no?

 

[RobF]

Since Roe is about to be shot down and everyone is claiming 'women' are being enslaved, who are these women? Are they all who identifty as a woman or are we specifically discussing women that have the ability to give birth? It seems like the abortion issue and trans rights are kind of mutually exclusive, no?

No.

It's clearly reasonable to speak of it impacting on women in general, regardless of the fact that quite a lot of women can't get pregnant. That some of those women who can't get pregnant are trans women doesn't change that.

That said, it is fair to note that some trans men are also potentially affected.

But that doesn't change the fact that it remains fair to speak of it in terms of its impact on women, since they are, obviously, overwhelmingly the group affected. The argument you're making there of it being "mutually exclusive" falls into the pattern of baselessly asserting that "recognising trans people and using inclusive language means we can't speak about women/men so they're being erased", which isn't a thing, as with JK Rowling's assertion, that we've discussed before, that the term "people who menstruate" being used erased the term "women", despite the article in question repeatedly referring to women throughout. We can, and do, do both, and asserting that can't be the case when it clearly is the case both in principle and practice is flawed and tedious.

So no, the "abortion issue" and "trans rights" are not remotely "mutually exclusive."

 

[Farb]

No.

It's clearly reasonable to speak of it impacting on women in general, regardless of the fact that quite a lot of women can't get pregnant. That some of those women who can't get pregnant are trans women doesn't change that.

That said, it is fair to note that some trans men are also potentially affected.

But that doesn't change the fact that it remains fair to speak of it in terms of its impact on women, since they are, obviously, overwhelmingly the group affected. The argument you're making there of it being "mutually exclusive" falls into the pattern of baselessly asserting that "recognising trans people and using inclusive language means we can't speak about women/men so they're being erased", which isn't a thing, as with JK Rowling's assertion, that we've discussed before, that the term "people who menstruate" being used erased the term "women", despite the article in question repeatedly referring to women throughout. We can, and do, do both, and asserting that can't be the case when it clearly is the case both in principle and practice is flawed and tedious.

So no, the "abortion issue" and "trans rights" are not remotely "mutually exclusive."

So men can have babies as well?
I ask because I have been told that if I don't have a uterus, then I don't have the option/privledge to speak on the abortion issue, you know, being a man and all. So to me, it does seem mutually exclusive by the words used in defense of abortion.

 

[Farb]

https://www.newsweek.com/progressive-case-against-abortion-opinion-1670360

"A less striking change will be the large contingent of progressives and liberals who are turning up in greater numbers each year. Yes, the event is often championed by right-wing politicians and organizations. At the same time, progressives like us are marching too: even progressive atheists, such as myself (Terrisa).

When we first marched in the March for Life, it was a challenge to find others who shared our worldview. Today, signs by liberal or secular groups are among the most visible at the March: Rehumanize International, Secular Pro-Life, Feminists for Life, PLAGAL+ (The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) and more."

To boil this down to religion vs. secular is just lazy apparently. This article also mentions that 95% of biologist consider life to begin at fertilization. I would guess that biologist tend to lean toward the secular side of the aisle.

 

[V Chip]

everyone is claiming 'women' are being enslaved

You're claiming women are being enslaved?

 

[V Chip]

What I am saying, the exercise is meant to be deceitful, and that it reduces womanhood to makeup-wearing. Still, even though those pictures of carefully chosen models are purposely shot and enhanced to be deceitful, some are still recognizable.

LOL.
Most women in the west wear makeup. Even if they don't, you yourself cannot tell with probably better than 66% accuracy who is a cisgendered woman and who is not when in a mixed group. And that's the point. It's ok to admit you're wrong or not as certain as you imply you are -- you don't lose message board rep if you do.

 

[RobF]

So men can have babies as well?
I ask because I have been told that if I don't have a uterus, then I don't have the option/privledge to speak on the abortion issue, you know, being a man and all. So to me, it does seem mutually exclusive by the words used in defense of abortion.

In this context, it would be accurate to say 'men can have babies' in the same way as it would be accurate to say 'mammals can lay eggs'. It's technically true, but as it's inaccurate for the overwhelming majority of men and mammals, when speaking generally, it would be more accurate to say that "men do not have babies with few exceptions such as some trans men" and "mammals do not lay eggs with few exceptions such as the platypus and four species of echidna". Deliberately phrasing things like this as "mammals can lay eggs," with the intention of suggesting that would mean there's some elephants going around laying eggs is, let's say, weak sauce.

And if it seems "mutually exclusive" to you, despite that being clearly not the case, frankly, that's your problem. Others will happily get along with respecting both abortion rights and trans rights demonstrating that they're clearly not exclusive, whether you understand it or not.

 

[Incumbent]

So you can see no other way to be pro-life other than religious zealotry?

While I am religious, I have talked with several people that don't believe God and are pro-life and my views about abortion have remained the same despite where I am in my faith (I was agnostic for most of my mature life).

From the standpoint of legal policy, I think it's necessary to distinguish and elevate the rights of the mother, who already has achieved established personhood, because of the inevitable conflicts when a determination needs to to be made. Otherwise reproductive policy is reduced to one of non-interventional fate. For example, instances where the mother's life is in danger or a female capable of child-bearing is raped and impregnated. I can assure you that if my wife were in a situation where a pregnancy posed a threat to her health, I would do everything possible to help her get whatever medical care she needed to save her life. I believe most loving partners feel the same way. And so at that point, the issue of protecting every woman's agency over her own body is decided for me.

Nor should any woman be forced to carry to term the offspring of her rapist. This includes instances when the impregnated female is, herself, a child.

Tragic scenarios related to health and violence are a reality. I consider these to be logical considerations, which then become steps to understanding why all women should be allowed to make determinations related to their own body and health care decisions.

 

[SystemShock]

LOL.
Most women in the west wear makeup. Even if they don't, you yourself cannot tell with probably better than 66% accuracy who is a cisgendered woman and who is not when in a mixed group. And that's the point. It's ok to admit you're wrong or not as certain as you imply you are -- you don't lose message board rep if you do.

Yeah, lol..

Again, you chose an article with posed and enhanced pictures that were meant to deceive, and now you make an unfounded claim about my accuracy in discerning who's man or woman, and declared yourself victorious.

And just so you know, I am not stating the pictures were meant to deceive because I couldn't figure out who's the woman or who isn't with a high degree of accuracy. I made the statement after scrolling to the pictures and noticing the poses and enhancements.

Also, I did waaaaay much better than 66%... not 100%, but I am confident I would've hit 100% in person; after all, we don't interact with posed, enhanced, static images in real life; we interact with people. But how I did on a "test" that was meant to be deceitful should not be your basis for any claims.

Sure enough, women in the West wear makeup (many don't, though). And then there's the East... maybe even the North and South... but the point remains, makeup, wearing a dress, and daintiness, a woman does not make.

 

[SystemShock]

So you can see no other way to be pro-life other than religious zealotry?

Pro-life as we know it? No.

While I am religious, I have talked with several people that don't believe God and are pro-life and my views about abortion have remained the same despite where I am in my faith (I was agnostic for most of my mature life).

Are they truly "pro-life", and all that the term entails?

If they don't believe in God, they are not going to claim life is sacred, or that zygotes have souls, or that Plan B is abortion, etc... unless they are not non-believers or confused to some degree.

Myself, I don't think abortions are a good thing either, mostly because the psychological and physiological damage it inflicts on the female. But I also think that the way to prevent abortions is not to deny them, but the empowering of women with education an effective options for pregnancy prevention, such as Plan B; and still, I do believe abortion should be an option even if I am not down with them.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I sure wish everyone would quit using the term Pro-Life. That is not what people who are against abortion are. They are Anti-Abortion. Pro-Life means you care about life during the duration, not just until they are born. Most "Pro Life" people could care less what happens to the child once its born. They are the ones who want to cut programs to help the poor. The parents are on drugs! cut their food stamps, Cut their section 8, cut their welfare!!!!. So the child ends up suffereing in even worse conditions, when the child dies, its all "oh well, its the parents fault".. But they really didn't care about what happened to the child once it was born.
If Roe is gonna be gone, then I say they need to step up and treat all miscarriages as child negelct and involuntary manslaughter. Wasn't wearing your seatbelt while pregnant, and caused you to have a miscarraige, go to jail. Alcohol in your system after a miscarriage, jail, not being taking care of your health causing a miscarraige, jail. All miscarraiges now need to be reported so they can be investigated. I think if you are "Pro Life" you would want to make sure ALL pregnancies are brought to term, and if they aren't the mother should be held responsible fo the death, its only fair.. Then you will see the R's changing their mind...

 

[Farb]

You're claiming women are being enslaved?

Not me. Those are some of the wild and emotional responses from those on this board that support abortion.

 

[Farb]

In this context, it would be accurate to say 'men can have babies' in the same way as it would be accurate to say 'mammals can lay eggs'. It's technically true, but as it's inaccurate for the overwhelming majority of men and mammals, when speaking generally, it would be more accurate to say that "men do not have babies with few exceptions such as some trans men" and "mammals do not lay eggs with few exceptions such as the platypus and four species of echidna". Deliberately phrasing things like this as "mammals can lay eggs," with the intention of suggesting that would mean there's some elephants going around laying eggs is, let's say, weak sauce.

And if it seems "mutually exclusive" to you, despite that being clearly not the case, frankly, that's your problem. Others will happily get along with respecting both abortion rights and trans rights demonstrating that they're clearly not exclusive, whether you understand it or not.

Clearly not the case? My guy, you just said that some men can give birth. That is not grounded in biology at all. Again with the word salad to bend and twist normal biological facts so as not to run the risk of offending some that likes to play dress up and act like a woman.
If a man can give birth, where does the baby grow inside the 'birthing person'? Testicles, maybe the prostate? To rephrase, if the 'man' wanted to preform an abortion on 'his' child, where would the doctor go into the 'birthing person' to destroy the child?

I 'clearly' do not understand and I don't think you do at all either. Your first sentence proved that point.

 

[Farb]

From the standpoint of legal policy, I think it's necessary to distinguish and elevate the rights of the mother, who already has achieved established personhood, because of the inevitable conflicts when a determination needs to to be made. Otherwise reproductive policy is reduced to one of non-interventional fate. For example, instances where the mother's life is in danger or a female capable of child-bearing is raped and impregnated. I can assure you that if my wife were in a situation where a pregnancy posed a threat to her health, I would do everything possible to help her get whatever medical care she needed to save her life. I believe most loving partners feel the same way. And so at that point, the issue of protecting every woman's agency over her own body is decided for me.

Nor should any woman be forced to carry to term the offspring of her rapist. This includes instances when the impregnated female is, herself, a child.

Tragic scenarios related to health and violence are a reality. I consider these to be logical considerations, which then become steps to understanding why all women should be allowed to make determinations related to their own body and health care decisions.

I would tend to agree with you on most of that. I will push back and say that all the instances you provided are so rare as to almost make them an anomaly.

I also don't believe in punishing the offspring for the 'sins of the father' or so to say.

Life begins at fertilization, or so say 95% of biologists, so you are correct in that the real debate should be at what point does the baby receive legal rights? I contend that the right to life trumps the right to consequence free sex or an easier life.

 

[brandon]

Life begins at fertilization, or so say 95% of biologists,

That is an appeal to authority that absolutely requires a citation, sir.

A fertilized egg cell is just as alive as the egg and sperm cells that fused to make it.

 

[Farb]

Pro-life as we know it? No.


Are they truly "pro-life", and all that the term entails?

If they don't believe in God, they are not going to claim life is sacred, or that zygotes have souls, or that Plan B is abortion, etc... unless they are not non-believers or confused to some degree.

Myself, I don't think abortions are a good thing either, mostly because the psychological and physiological damage it inflicts on the female. But I also think that the way to prevent abortions is not to deny them, but the empowering of women with education an effective options for pregnancy prevention, such as Plan B; and still, I do believe abortion should be an option even if I am not down with them.

I linked to a group that is pretty radical left and are also radically pro-life so they are not a religious group.

What does 'pro-life' and all it entails mean to you?

You brought up something that has been brought up before on here. Why is the psychological and physiological toll after an abortion is so great? The argument is that it is a clump of cells. Do those same damages take place after you surgically remove a spot on your skin that might be cancerous? Physiological maybe to an extent of wound care at the most but surely not a psychological toll? Because is the is act of destroying a life, a fundamental and hardwired survival instinct of the human condition.

 

[Farb]

I sure wish everyone would quite using the term Pro-Life. That is not what people who are against abortion are. They are Anti-Abortion. Pro-Life means you care about life during the duration, not just until they are born. Most "Pro Life" people could care less what happens to the child once its born. They are the ones who want to cut programs to help the poor. The parents are on drugs! cut their food stamps, Cut their section 8, cut their welfare!!!!. So the child ends up suffereing in even worse conditions, when the child dies, its all "oh well, its the parents fault".. But they really didn't care about what happened to the child once it was born.
If Roe is gonna be gone, then I say they need to step up and treat all miscarriages as child negelct and involuntary manslaughter. Wasn't wearing your seatbelt while pregnant, and caused you to have a miscarraige, go to jail. Alcohol in your system after a miscarriage, jail, not being taking care of your health causing a miscarraige, jail. All miscarraiges now need to be reported so they can be investigated. I think if you are "Pro Life" you would want to make sure ALL pregnancies are brought to term, and if they aren't the mother should be held responsible fo the death, its only fair.. Then you will see the R's changing their mind...

Ok, fair enough. You can label me anti-abortion. That makes sense to me.

 

[RobF]

Clearly not the case? My guy, you just said that some men can give birth. That is not grounded in biology at all. Again with the word salad to bend and twist normal biological facts so as not to run the risk of offending some that likes to play dress up and act like a woman.
If a man can give birth, where does the baby grow inside the 'birthing person'? Testicles, maybe the prostate? To rephrase, if the 'man' wanted to preform an abortion on 'his' child, where would the doctor go into the 'birthing person' to destroy the child?

I 'clearly' do not understand and I don't think you do at all either. Your first sentence proved that point.

So I said, and I quote, "men do not have babies with few exceptions such as some trans men", and pointed out that "Deliberately phrasing things like this as "mammals can lay eggs," with the intention of suggesting that would mean there's some elephants going around laying eggs is, let's say, weak sauce.""

And you apparently read that and thought, "I know, I'll prove his point by doing exactly that." You've pretended that you don't understand what "trans man" means, and ignored "men do not have babies with few exceptions such as some trans men" for "men can give birth" and then literally suggested that means babies "maybe grow inside the prostate" despite the original statement making it clear that's not the case; which is much the same thing as pretending you don't know what a platypus is and suggesting that elephants lay eggs.

And this is pretty much all the people on your side of the 'argument' do. You pretend you don't know who trans men and women are, try to pretend people using terms that apply specifically to them are talking about all men and all women, and then look baffled, like a dog trying to do algebra, as if that somehow constitutes an argument to anything other than your own lack of comprehension.