[skinster]

Men should be punished for impregnating women since it's their sperm that causes pregnancy after all..and so they should suffer castration because they shouldn't be so godamn irresponsible with their impregnations and maybe this is how they'll finally learn not to impregnate women who can't get pregnant by themselves.

My dick correlates with orgasms. Could there be a causal relationship? Stay tuned for an interview with all your mothers!

[Unthinking Majority]

Under European law, a foetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother.

So under European law a mother can beat or stab her baby in utero at will with no punishment?

[ckaihatsu]

So under European law a mother can beat or stab her baby in utero at will with no punishment?

A real penny-pincher, huh -- ?


x D

[Patrickov]

When your belief would force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy, and take away that woman's rights to her own body, it is misogyny.

What I said is that unwanted pregnancy that can be controlled by the woman (that means, no rape, no force, no deceit, no birth control failure, etc.) should be avoided in the first place. If it had happened it's more or less doomed either way. Under this circumstance, abortion is murder because it can be avoided in the first place, but that does NOT mean the woman has to be condemned or forced otherwise.

You are the one forcing thoughts on me, not me on you or anyone else.

[Patrickov]

You *sidestepped* a prior question of mine, one that encapsulates the 'crossroads' that you're at, regarding this issue:

Does the woman have the civil right to be 'irresponsible' over her own treatment of her own body, or doesn't she?

From my argument with Member Godstud it is easy to see my answer is also a "yes", despite my opposition to his proposition.

[Godstud]

@Patrickov Your belief only would work in a perfect world. It's not. Reality isn't as simple.

I am not going to deny a woman the right to have an abortion, or to control what goes on inside their body, so I am not "forcing my belief" on anyone. You are entitled to your opinion, but it's irrelevant as to whether or not a woman has an abortion, since, quite simply, you are not the woman. You, and others, want to impose your beliefs on someone else.

[Patrickov]

You, and others, want to impose your beliefs on someone else.

You are forcing me to "believe" that I am forcing others while I have repeatedly stated that it is not true.

You are in effect bullying me. You have a problem. Go see a doctor.

[Godstud]

I am bullying you, because I think your belief is all about control of a woman, and her body?

IT IS!!!

That's fact, buddy. If people like you wanted to stop abortions, they'd do things to give women more options, and better education and support, instead of simply going straight to banning abortions. You care little for a woman's well-being or rights. It's all about a little bit of fetus inside a woman, that is important.

Go report me for bullying. Then stop being a dainty snowflake.

[Patrickov]

That's fact, buddy. If people like you wanted to stop abortions, they'd do things to give women more options, and better education and support, instead of simply going straight to banning abortions. You care little for a woman's well-being or rights. It's all about a little bit of fetus inside a woman, that is important.

You are, again, making false accusations and wrongfully categorizing me.

No one asked about all those policies which I think few would oppose (at least I won't), and I do not think they are directly relevant to your initial statement, that's why I didn't mention it. And now you use that to slander me as being misogynist.

When (and more importantly, why) is it necessary that I am required to actively mention the above things in order to qualify I am not a misogynist?

Apparently, my stance is actually not as conflicting as you expect me, so you start to raise the bar in order to make me look incompatible and can be categorized with those zero-tolerance pro-life people.

Let me tell you, you are employing a very black-and-white mentality here, which is why I voice my opposition in the first place.

[Godstud]

I am not characterizing you in any way. I am characterizing that particularly VIEW, or "morality"(I use the term lightly, as taking away a person's rights isn't very moral).

It is a very black and white thing when it comes to women's rights to control their own bodies. It's all or nothing. We can't just pick and choose when people have the rights over their own bodies.

You don't need permission from anyone to get a nose-job. You don't need a person's permission for plastic surgery or any kind of elective surgery, unless you are a minor(which we are not discussing).

Now, if I had a belief that gallstones were alive, would that be sufficient justification for me to prevent you from getting gallstone surgery?

[Patrickov]

I am characterizing that particularly VIEW, or "morality"(I use the term lightly, as taking away a person's rights isn't very moral).

It is a very black and white thing when it comes to women's rights to control their own bodies. It's all or nothing. We can't just pick and choose when people have the rights over their own bodies.

You don't need permission from anyone to get a nose-job. You don't need a person's permission for plastic surgery or any kind of elective surgery, unless you are a minor(which we are not discussing).

Now, if I had a belief that gallstones were alive, would that be sufficient justification for me to prevent you from getting gallstone surgery?

Me thinking something is wrong does not necessarily mean I am calling for taking away the rights of the said act. I have NEVER said that, but you keep putting this into my mouth.

In fact this is exactly where pro-life advocates are wrong. They, like me, have freedom to believe something is wrong, and, as you said in your previous post, could take (reasonable) measures to prevent such circumstances from happening. But when such circumstances arise it's down to the person(s) in concern to decide what should follow. Others have no rights to intervene.

Let me say it again: I am free to believe and express my opinion that something is wrong, but that does not mean others have to think the same. Neither of us have rights to intervene each other -- it is two-way, not just from me to others.

I have repeatedly stated that I don't advocate intervention of women's rights to have abortion, but you keep saying that I do. Those who act on (extreme version of, I must say!) similar belief have a problem, and you, unfortunately, committed the same mistake.

[Godstud]

It is an all or nothing debate. We either give women the control over their bodies, or we don't.

[ckaihatsu]

You *sidestepped* a prior question of mine, one that encapsulates the 'crossroads' that you're at, regarding this issue:

Does the woman have the civil right to be 'irresponsible' over her own treatment of her own body, or doesn't she?

From my argument with Member Godstud it is easy to see my answer is also a "yes", despite my opposition to his proposition.

---

What I said is that unwanted pregnancy that can be controlled by the woman (that means, no rape, no force, no deceit, no birth control failure, etc.) should be avoided in the first place. If it had happened it's more or less doomed either way. Under this circumstance, abortion is murder because it can be avoided in the first place, but that does NOT mean the woman has to be condemned or forced otherwise.

You are the one forcing thoughts on me, not me on you or anyone else.

I don't *mean* to 'force' anything on you -- you're on this thread, so anyone who's on this thread would be expected to discuss the thread's topic, in this case *abortion*.

You're elucidating a certain *moral* stance, which, in and of itself, is not necessarily *political*.

Since you answered my query with a 'yes', that means that you recognize that your *moral* stance is not necessarily *enforceable*, as with intervention by the state over the woman's body. While there *are* laws that regulate *how late* a woman can have an abortion, I think the *visibility* of the baby bump (fetus), and abortion industry norms tend to limit the practice of abortion to the first two trimesters, at most.

Your position is somewhat complicated because you use the term 'murder', which can be *both* a moral position *and* a legal one. But you've clarified that you mean it in the *moral* sense, and we all have the right to our own personal opinions. In the *legal* sense, which is political, it's *not* murder, which is the definition that *counts* since it's what we all go by.

[Patrickov]

@ckaihatsu I was criticising Member Godstud for forcing his thoughts on me, not you. Chill out.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu I was criticising Member Godstud for forcing his thoughts on me, not you. Chill out.

Duly chill.

[Godstud]

@Patrickov I am attacking what your point of view, what are saying, and the implications of that, sir. I am not attacking you personally.

Your statements, however, show a lack of understanding of how polarized this issue is.

In order to take away the agency of women, the right-wing tactic is to call abortion murder. They aren't talking about curtailing abortions or diminishing them, but calling it outright murder(a criminal offense). This is what it makes it an all or nothing argument.

[Black Consequense]

I just don't get why pro-choicers are so hypocritical when it comes to the death penalty. You deny a blameless baby a once in a 100,000,000,000,000,000 chance experience, yet are so adamant on letting a guy, who ironically did very late term abortions to children and adults, live.

[Pants-of-dog]

I just don't get why pro-choicers are so hypocritical when it comes to the death penalty. You deny a blameless baby a once in a 100,000,000,000,000,000 chance experience, yet are so adamant on letting a guy, who ironically did very late term abortions to children and adults, live.

I think the problem is that you are hoping for a simple and clear explanation of how it is logically consistent, when there is no such explanation. The two seemingly contradictory positions are a result of two separate arguments that are not related at all.

Also, the history of the two issues (abortion and death penalty) are also quite different. The underlying argument for both pro choice and opposing the death penalty is egalitarianism.

For the issue of abortion, we can argue that a born person is not allowed to use our blood and organs to keep themselves alive without our consent, so we equally have a right to refuse that unborn people cannot use the blood and organs of pregnant people without the consent of the pregnant person.

As for the death penalty, the egalitarian argument against the death penalty is that the death penalty is disproportionately used against BIPOC people in similar circumstances as white offenders.

[Patrickov]

@Patrickov I am attacking what your point of view, what are saying, and the implications of that, sir. I am not attacking you personally.

Which is why I found the British Parliament's ban second-person pronouns is wise.

Your statements, however, show a lack of understanding of how polarized this issue is.

I am fully aware of the issue's sensitivity but it doesn't mean I (and by extension, anyone) should be controlled by it.

In order to take away the agency of women, the right-wing tactic is to call abortion murder. They aren't talking about curtailing abortions or diminishing them, but calling it outright murder(a criminal offense). This is what it makes it an all or nothing argument.

As I said, this is exactly where the hard conservatives should be denounced (or even stopped). They made a negative generalization of something which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and considering the benefit of doubt and how it affects the people involved (especially the mother) abortion has to be treated as leniently as possible.

Also, I never objected precautions.

But there must be some abortions which should be considered murder, or at least it would have been seen as murder had the baby been born.

I have to ask: Where, and why, there needs to be a boundary that makes a life seems "expendable" before it's born?

[Patrickov]

As for the death penalty, the egalitarian argument against the death penalty is that the death penalty is disproportionately used against BIPOC people in similar circumstances as white offenders.

My main problem with this penalty is that it is too often applied on already poor people.

I strongly believe severity of penalty should be directly proportional to both the extent of the crime and the power held by the accused. If the accused committed, say, murder, because he had the means to do so as the President, he deserves the death penalty. Meanwhile, ordinary folks, however hideous crime he's committed, would suffice being locked away forever.

(In this sense, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping probably deserve being beheaded together)