Florida governor DeSantis says recreational pot and abortion are too radical

[Clizby Wampuscat]

They made the child, so they created the opportunity for a child with health problems. If not for the parents' actions, there would be no child with a life-or-death ailment.

But again: why the focus on responsibility? You've claimed that your motive is about saving lives. Which is it?

It is both.

A few ideas:

- programs that are effective at reducing unplanned pregnancy
- job-protected paid maternity and parental leave
- programs that reduce the cost associated with pregnancy or raising a child (e.g. universal health care, subsidized childcare)
- reducing the stigma suffered by single mothers

... etc., etc. I'm sure you could come up with more ideas as well.

Basically, any measure that addresses the reasons why people seek abortions. Here are the top results from one survey:

I can be on board with any of these ideas.

Your position is misogynistic in its effects. I have no idea if it's consistent with your motives.

If you aren't a misogynist, I recommend you reflect on why you support misogynistic things.

I don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree but that is not what I was asking about.

The right to decide they cannot financially afford a kid so they can abort them, men don't have that right.

Men are forced to financially support their children if the mother decides to have the child. A father cannot just say I don't want to support the child, the mother can.

That's not true. A parent who gives birth is just as much on the hook for the child as the other parent is.

And to use the organ donation analogy again: if a 5-year-old child would die without a kidney/bone marrow/etc. and the father is the only match, that would also be a time when a father could unilaterally decide that the child's mother will continue to have the financial burdens of parenthood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is both.

This isn't true. Your replies in this thread have demonstrated that you don't support "saving lives" unless the person who would carry the burden of this is "responsible."

(And even then, not necessarily - only if the person you deem responsible is pregnant)

I can be on board with any of these ideas.

You should also be able to recognize that no anti-choice group is calling for any of them.

Many of them are actively opposed by anti-choice groups.

I don't.

You don't support legal bans on abortion?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It changes because there is another life involved.

Not because you say so.

The mother and father used their bodily autonomy to have a baby.

No, they used that to have sex. If they consent to having a baby and nature allows it, then they will do that. If they don't, either they have an abortion in a free society, or are forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term in the Republican vision for Americans.

the person in the womb had no choice.

Irrelevant. The embryo has no voice and no standing unless granted by law.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It changes because there is another life involved. The mother and father used their bodily autonomy to have a baby. They are responsible for its well being. They had the choice, the person in the womb had no choice.

It never changes. Bodily autonomy is worthless if it only applies sometimes.

The couple used their bodily autonomy to engage in sexual intercourse. Not to "have a baby."

The fetus in the womb isn't a legally recognized person until it's born. It doesn't get to reside inside the body of a person who doesn't want it there. It cannot survive on it's own, outside the uterus, as the man and woman do. The man and woman are fully grown and developed legally recognized persons with cognition and social connections. A fetus is not. It requires the woman's body to survive. The fetus in the womb isn't capable of making choices, as it doesn't have a brain it would use to do so. The only person present, who can actually make any choices is the fully grown and developed legally recognized human being that the fetus requires for survival.

Is it safe to say that you think bodily autonomy doesn't apply to the woman after she becomes pregnant because she "is responsible for its [the fetus's] well being?" So it's a matter of responsibility to you?

If that is how you see it.

This was in response to, "The unborn" have the same rights has any fully grown and developed human being. They don't get to use someone's body against their will.It sounds like you want "the unborn" to have special rights, that aren't afforded to any other human beings."

Yes, that's how I see it. Should I gather from your lack of rebuttal that you agree that you think the "unborn" should have special rights that aren't afforded to actual human beings?

So what few restrictions do you suggest?

Fetal viability is the only one that comes to mind.

I think there should be very few restrictions as I don't think such decisions should be made by anyone other than the people involved, whose lives are actually impacted by their decisions, rather than by people who don't have any skin in the game and aren't privy to the specifics of anyone's situation in life. Go worry about your own body and I'll worry about mine.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That's not true. A parent who gives birth is just as much on the hook for the child as the other parent is.

I agree, that was not my point.

And to use the organ donation analogy again: if a 5-year-old child would die without a kidney/bone marrow/etc. and the father is the only match, that would also be a time when a father could unilaterally decide that the child's mother will continue to have the financial burdens of parenthood.

I have responded to this before. It seems we disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, that was not my point.

What was your point, then?

All people get bodily autonomy, which generally supersedes other rights. All parents are responsible for raising their children unless someone else accepts this responsibility in their place. The rights here are equal; nobody is getting a right that the other side doesn't have.

... unless you get your way.

I have responded to this before. It seems we disagree.

The only response you've given is irrelevant to the point I'm making now.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This isn't true. Your replies in this thread have demonstrated that you don't support "saving lives" unless the person who would carry the burden of this is "responsible."

(And even then, not necessarily - only if the person you deem responsible is pregnant)

No, the mother and father are responsible for the child's existence, are they not?

You should also be able to recognize that no anti-choice group is calling for any of them.

Ok I am not them talk to them about it.

Many of them are actively opposed by anti-choice groups.

Ok I am not them talk to them about it.

You don't support legal bans on abortion?

I do. Label it what you want but just supporting some bans on abortion does not mean I hate women.

Misogyny: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women

I have none. Many women have my same position, are they misogynistic?

 

[fantome profane]

The mother and father used their bodily autonomy to have a baby.

If the government is making decisions about how and when you are allowed to use you "autonomy" then you don't have autonomy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the mother and father are responsible for the child's existence, are they not?

I was talking about something else: when one person shoots another, we don't make the shooter even donate blood to help their victim (in the cases where it would help).

You're fine with this, right? Or would you change the law to violate the bodily autonomy of the "responsible" in that case?

Ok I am not them talk to them about it.

Ok I am not them talk to them about it.

Which of these measures have you actually supported?

I do. Label it what you want but just supporting some bans on abortion does not mean I hate women.

It's misogynistic in its effect: it causes great harm to women.

Whether you have misogynistic motivations, your position is misogynistic in its effects.

Misogyny: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women

I have none. Many women have my same position, are they misogynistic?

They're hurting women. Whether they're misogynists or hypocrites is something that they're best able to answer.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If the government is making decisions about how and when you are allowed to use you "autonomy" then you don't have autonomy.

Ok

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I was talking about something else: when one person shoots another, we don't make the shooter even donate blood to help their victim (in the cases where it would help).

You're fine with this, right? Or would you change the law to violate the bodily autonomy of the "responsible" in that case?

That sounds like a restorative justice model. Kinda sounds like a good idea.

Which of these measures have you actually supported?

Well I do give money to an organization that helps mothers with basic necessities and health care through the church my wife goes to.

It's misogynistic in its effect: it causes great harm to women.

Whether you have misogynistic motivations, your position is misogynistic in its effects.


They're hurting women. Whether they're misogynists or hypocrites is something that they're best able to answer.

That is your opinion. ok.