Florida governor DeSantis says recreational pot and abortion are too radical

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what I am hearing you say is that you do not support any restrictions on abortion enforceable by the government.

It's the only ethical position, IMO.

If you want fewer abortions, make better options. Help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Create alternatives to abortion that are so appealing that pregnant people freely choose them.

Resorting to outlawing abortion is a tacit admission that you can't come up with any better ideas. If you can make abortion a less-preferred option, nobody will take it even if it's legal. Banning abortion is an admission that it's still the best option in at least some cases.

 

[fantome profane]

So what I am hearing you say is that you do not support any restrictions on abortion enforceable by the government.

Wow, I am impressed by your ability to read.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"DeSantis also took aim at the measure that would permit recreational marijuana, suggesting in his comments that it would open to a proliferation of marijuana stores that could operate when and wherever they wanted. “This state will start to smell like marijuana in our cities and towns,” DeSantis said. “It will reduce the quality of life.”"

What a moron.

 

[metis]

Why just the abortion law that wasn't being recognized 160 years later?

EXACTLY, as there's numerous other laws passed back then that have never been repealed, such as only men were allowed to vote, and all men had to join a militia.

 

[fantome profane]

EXACTLY, as there's numerous other laws passed back then that have never been repealed, such as only men were allowed to vote

They will be reinstating that next.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They will be reinstating that next.

Strangely enough Jimmy Kimmel appears to agree with that, sorry for the poor quality:

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The special pleading is on your part.

When a woman is pregnant, you would deny her her right to bodily autonomy, but if, a few years later, the father is the only match for a lifesaving organ or tissue donation, his bodily autonomy supersedes the child's right to life.

Your position has misogynistic hypocrisy baked in.

No, misogyny has no place in my argument. There are plenty of women that have my point of view. That is just rhetoric to get me to be fearful of being called names, pretty typical tactic of the left. She has bodily autonomy until she makes a decision decision to engage in sex that lead to the pregnancy. Changing the subject to a different scenario is just another tactic to get us off topic.

There's no other situation where we force people to give up bodily autonomy. In every situation except anti-choicers trying to prevent abortion, trying to deny someone their right to bodily autonomy would be a serious crime.

The unborn has a right to bodily autonomy as well.

What restrictions do you believe we should have on abortion. I think once you said none.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's the only ethical position, IMO.

If you want fewer abortions, make better options. Help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Create alternatives to abortion that are so appealing that pregnant people freely choose them.

I am for men and women making better decisions if they do not want to have a child. I am also for anything that reduces abortions but the people that have the most power to reduce abortions are the parents.

Resorting to outlawing abortion is a tacit admission that you can't come up with any better ideas. If you can make abortion a less-preferred option, nobody will take it even if it's legal. Banning abortion is an admission that it's still the best option in at least some cases.

I agree is some cases it can be the right decision but very few. It is interesting that you and many pro choice people only care about a woman's decision about an abortion but don't care about her decisions that lead to the pregnancy, you have never addressed that. If I give a 12 year old a loaded gun I bet you would hold me responsible if that kid harmed someone with it. But you won't hold a woman and man responsible for their decisions prior to a pregnancy.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Wow, I am impressed by your ability to read.

So I wonder why you felt the need to post this. I was trying to make sure I understood your position.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

(It's amusing that suicide was a criminal offence in some places, notably England and Wales until 1961. I often wondered what the punishment was for successfully killing yourself.)

I've thought the same and looked at this before out of curiousity.
This is a brief article that shows a couple of root cause thoughts which I've seen mentioned previously.

The long history of criminalising suicide

It was reported in June that more than 100 male detainees had made suicide attempts on Manus Island in recent months, with the incidence spiking…

www.lexology.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

The unborn has a right to bodily autonomy as well.

Yes, they have the same rights as an adult. Tell me, can you decide that you are going to crawl back into your mother's womb? Can you plug yourself into her blood system to keep yourself fed against her will? If not then why should a fetus have these extraordinary rights.

You want to give the fetus more rights than the mother.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, misogyny has no place in my argument.

If that's true, then I'm sure you can name another case where you would deny the bodily autonomy of a cis man. Just one.

There are plenty of women that have my point of view. That is just rhetoric to get me to be fearful of being called names, pretty typical tactic of the left.

It's not name-calling; just holding up a mirror to what you're doing.

She has bodily autonomy until she makes a decision decision to engage in sex that lead to the pregnancy. Changing the subject to a different scenario is just another tactic to get us off topic.

At least you're admitting that your position entails denying bodily autonomy to pregnant people. You're the first anti-choicer I've seen do that.

The unborn has a right to bodily autonomy as well.

Bodily autonomy doesn't include the right to occupy someone else's body without their consent.

What restrictions do you believe we should have on abortion. I think once you said none.

That's right. I think that abortion should be safe, available and taxpayer-funded at every point in pregnancy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

She has bodily autonomy until she makes a decision to engage in sex that lead to the pregnancy.

Those aren't my values, nor those of most western Europeans and citizens of English-speaking countries.

And that's not autonomy.

The unborn has a right to bodily autonomy as well.

What you mean is that the woman doesn't have autonomy when she needs it.

Now if that fetus is a girl, if and when she becomes pregnant years later, she is trumped by any fetus in her womb. This is to please religious people who think they are enforcing their god's will. Many people don't care what religious people think a god they don't believe in wants, and don't want their rights limited by such thinking.

You might or might not be religious yourself, but if not, your preference is law because most with your values are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am for men and women making better decisions if they do not want to have a child.

But you can look at the world and see that people seek abortions. That's the status quo; if you want a change from that, it's up to you.

Now... the question is whether you choose to do that ethically - by getting people to freely choose other options - or unethically - by denying them their fundamental human rights.

I am also for anything that reduces abortions but the people that have the most power to reduce abortions are the parents.

But the people who seek abortions apparently want abortions. If they didn't, they wouldn't want them.

You're the one who wants to reduce abortions. Nobody else automatically has this goal just because it's something you want.

I agree is some cases it can be the right decision but very few.

I meant "right" as in "the most appealing option available to the person"... i.e. the option that people often freely choose, or would choose if it was available. Banning abortion only works as an anti-abortion strategy because people seek abortions.

It is interesting that you and many pro choice people only care about a woman's decision about an abortion but don't care about her decisions that lead to the pregnancy, you have never addressed that.

I guess you weren't paying attention, because I've addressed it a few times in this thread already.

... but as it happens, the things that lead up to pregnancy are most of the reason why I use the term "anti-choice" and not "anti-abortion":

- proper sex ed is an anti-abortion measure. Opposing this, or pushing "abstinence-only" programs, is pro-abortion.
- distributing condoms in colleges and high schools is an anti-abortion measure. Opposing this is pro-abortion.
- access to prescription contraceptives is an anti-abortion measure. Opposing this is pro-abortion.
- etc., etc.

Since so many anti-choice groups take the pro-abortion position on these and other issues, I can't reasonably call them or the movement as a whole "anti-abortion."

If I give a 12 year old a loaded gun I bet you would hold me responsible if that kid harmed someone with it. But you won't hold a woman and man responsible for their decisions prior to a pregnancy.

Careful. You're getting into that rapist mentality again. I'm not sure this is a road you want to go down.

Also: what's your goal? Is it to prevent abortions, or to punish women who have sex you disapprove of?

 

[fantome profane]

So I wonder why you felt the need to post this. I was trying to make sure I understood your position.

So I wonder why my position is so hard for you to understand.






(That is not really true, I understand exactly why it is so hard for you to understand, but I am being polite)

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, they have the same rights as an adult. Tell me, can you decide that you are going to crawl back into your mother's womb? Can you plug yourself into her blood system to keep yourself fed against her will? If not then why should a fetus have these extraordinary rights.

You want to give the fetus more rights than the mother.

Women have more rights in the US than men do already. It is not about the number of rights. The mother and father made a choice to have sex that lead to the pregnancy, they have a responsibility to the unborn life they created. If I need a kidney from my father he is not responsible to give that to me, he did not cause the situation where I need a kidney.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Women have more rights in the US than men do already. It is not about the number of rights. The mother and father made a choice to have sex that lead to the pregnancy, they have a responsibility to the unborn life they created.

You do realize that focusing on "responsibility" tells us that it isn't really about saving fetuses for you, right?

And abortion is a responsible option. It's only your personal values that suggest otherwise.

If I need a kidney from my father he is not responsible to give that to me, he did not cause the situation where I need a kidney.

Nonsense. If not for your existence, you wouldn't need a kidney, and your father is just as responsible for your existence as your mother is.

 

[Pogo]

Women have more rights in the US than men do already. It is not about the number of rights. The mother and father made a choice to have sex that lead to the pregnancy, they have a responsibility to the unborn life they created. If I need a kidney from my father he is not responsible to give that to me, he did not cause the situation where I need a kidney.

So if I get hit by a car on my way to work and can't work, I should lose my job and income because I drove to work?

logical analogy of a misogynistic incel.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if I get hit by a car on my way to work and can't work, I should lose my job and income because I drove to work?

logical analogy of a misogynistic incel.

It's the "logic" of someone who doesn't care about consent, which is why I described it as a "rapist mentality" earlier.

All of these statements apply the same reasoning, devoid of the idea that continuous consent is the standard:

"If she didn't want a baby, she shouldn't have had sex."

"She agreed to have sex and then told me to stop. She can't change her mind! I get to keep going."

"If she didn't want to have sex, she shouldn't have invited me into her apartment."

 

[F1fan]

Women have more rights in the US than men do already.

Like the right to not be raped. And the right to not be forced to get pregnant as a result of a rape.

But apparently big government can take away the right to not be pregnant, even when it's against a woman's will.

It is not about the number of rights. The mother and father made a choice to have sex that lead to the pregnancy, they have a responsibility to the unborn life they created.

Do you think fetuses that have devopmental issues have rights when they won't survive birth?

If I need a kidney from my father he is not responsible to give that to me, he did not cause the situation where I need a kidney.

Big government can pass a law that allows assigning ownership of one of the kidneys to the son. As long as government agrees it has the authority to do this, it can do it. And if we have courts that are sufficiently sympathetic to this way of thinking they will affirm this law.

Once that kidney is legally the son's the son can use government to enforce qualified people to take possession of it. After all where in the constitution does it say you have rights to keep your organs?

This illustrates the government assuming the authority to give zygotes a protective status, and where the government makes the decision about this collection of cells that the person whose body it is in has no say. The zygote has no brain, no citizenship, no constitutional rights as a born person, etc. The government treats this collection of cells based on what it could become in the future, not what it is. And it assumes the zygote will develop without problems. In Texas the law is so broad that doctors can't give care to pregnant women who need it.