There's no such thing as the "war on women"

[Kalidas]

I don't care if it preferable or not. Do you consider it wrong? If life begins at birth, why would it or wouldn't it be right to have an abortion hours before birth. If you say life begins at birth, then it wouldn't unreasonable to assume you are implying hours before birth, a fetus/unborn baby isn't a human life.



I am all for women's rights. Women should have the ability to do whatever they want with their bodies whenever they want and for whatever reasons. But one persons rights end where anothers begins. If a fetus is viable, it has a life separate from it's mother, therefore, the womans rights end when the fetus becomes viable.

And here in lies the root of the entire problem. Where does life begin? Conception , gestation, pre delivery, or post delivery. This issue can never become fully solved until that distinction is made.

 

[freethinker44]

Murder is a legal term describing the unlawful taking of a human life, abortion is legal hence not murder.

Legal definitions change. We run into the same problem in economics when it is argued that the concept supply and demand is practically synonymous with extortion, except that extortion is defined as an illegal act and supply and demand is not. It's just semantics, it changes nothing. Besides, there is some legal precedent in the recent trial of Dr. Gosnell who was convicted of murdering 3 babies during late term abortions.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh, please.

You're passionate about preventing abortions, right? Yes or no? Is it to save the lives of the unborn, in your eyes?

As passionate as against the killing of homosexuals in Africa, sure.

I know its wrong and I ll speak against it, I wont turn into any special kind of activist or donate money to it, but I do know those laws are wrong. Its wrong to make homosexuality unlawful, it is wrong to make lawful the killing of the unborn.

I am not becoming an activist of any of those causes. I will argue pasionately about my point on them in some cases, but that's about it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And here in lies the root of the entire problem. Where does life begin? Conception , gestation, pre delivery, or post delivery. This issue can never become fully solved until that distinction is made.

How about it begins with the life of the woman in the first place?

 

[Me Myself]

All I'm saying is that atheists have no authority such as a deity to base any kind of absolute moral standard on.

Because I as a Polytheist don't see the gods as the source of human morality I don't either.

My moral ideas are subjective. I'm in no different a position than the atheist is.

If you're offended that's your issue.

A bit offended yes. Of sharing humanity.

It happens sometimes.

 

[freethinker44]

How is it a separate viable life from its mother freethinker when its connected to her, breathes through her, and receives its nourishment through her?

It is not a separate life capable of self survival.

If it can survive outside the mother then it is viable.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

If it can survive outside the mother then it is viable.

Yet it can't except through the intervention of modern technology. In nature it could not. What you're suggesting is not even natural, and what exactly are you suggesting? That a woman be forced to do something she doesn't want?

There's another element of this pro lifers always forget. Rather abortion is legal or not women will still seek one out, and non-medical abortions ARE dangerous.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As passionate as against the killing of homosexuals in Africa, sure.

I know its wrong and I ll speak against it, I wont turn into any special kind of activist or donate money to it, but I do know those laws are wrong. Its wrong to make homosexuality unlawful, it is wrong to make lawful the killing of the unborn.

I am not becoming an activist of any of those causes. I will argue pasionately about my point on them in some cases, but that's about it.

Got it. You equate women around the world who want to terminate a pregnancy as morally equal to murderers killing homosexuals in Africa. And you wonder why you **** somebody like Alceste off.

My point is that the focus isn't really about protecting the lives of the unborn, but being about what women are doing and wanting to do. Otherwise, we would see pro-lifers as passionate about preventing miscarriages and spontaneous abortions as preventing induced abortions.

It really is about branding women seeking abortions as killers. Face it, making abortion illegal does nothing to decrease the number of abortions around the world. Either women are dying from trying to terminate a pregnancy, or they're terminating a pregnancy in a safe and clean environment.

But apparently statistics don't matter. What matters is branding women as killers, shaming them into carrying a pregnancy if they don't want to, and threatening them with either hellfire, social exile, or jailtime if they want to not be pregnant. This is why there is a contention that a war on women exists.

 

[Kalidas]

How about it begins with the life of the woman in the first place?

I am not 100% sure what you mean about this. Are you meaning if a womans life is in danger? Or her opinion on the matter? Fort yes we have discussed that d yes the woman's life is important. The other point I'm trying to get across would state that a woman is the sole decider of what is or is not murder. With similar logic a woman could murder her 5 her old son because he us interfering with her rights. I'm not saying that WAS your argument I just wasn't sure what our point was to be honest.

 

[kiwimac]

Jewish tradition (as an example) posits that a foetus is not a Nephesh 'living soul' until it has drawn it's first independent breath. I find that a useful definition.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yet it can't except through the intervention of modern technology. In nature it could not. What you're suggesting is not even natural, and what exactly are you suggesting? That a woman be forced to do something she doesn't want?

There's another element of this pro lifers always forget. Rather abortion is legal or not women will still seek one out, and non-medical abortions ARE dangerous.

Exactly. But sometimes, people don't like facts. Especially if it goes against their argument:

Results: Approximately 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed worldwide in 1995, resulting in a worldwide abortion rate of 35 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Among the subregions of the world, Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted.

Source

So, really, women will do what they can to terminate a pregnancy, even if the laws restrict them to.

 

[freethinker44]

Yet it can't except through the intervention of modern technology. In nature it could not. What you're suggesting is not even natural, and what exactly are you suggesting? That a woman be forced to do something she doesn't want?

The whole point of medicine is to save people who would otherwise die without it.

There's another element of this pro lifers always forget. Rather abortion is legal or not women will still seek one out, and non-medical abortions ARE dangerous.

That's because there is no penalty for it. How many doctors would be willing to perform a late term abortion if they knew they would be charged with murder. How many women would get a late term abortion if they knew they would be charged with conspiring to commit murder?

 

[Kalidas]

Yet it can't except through the intervention of modern technology. In nature it could not. What you're suggesting is not even natural, and what exactly are you suggesting? That a woman be forced to do something she doesn't want?

There's another element of this pro lifers always forget. Rather abortion is legal or not women will still seek one out, and non-medical abortions ARE dangerous.

This is true. Very true. Yet I question the logic of this. You could also say people are going to drink and drive anyways so might as well make it legal. I am not disagreeing or agreeing just rating the counter argument.

 

[Me Myself]

Got it. You equate women around the world who want to terminate a pregnancy as morally equal to murderers killing homosexuals in Africa. And you wonder why you **** somebody like Alceste off.

My point is that the focus isn't really about protecting the lives of the unborn, but being about what women are doing and wanting to do. Otherwise, we would see pro-lifers as passionate about preventing miscarriages and spontaneous abortions as preventing induced abortions.

It really is about branding women seeking abortions as killers. Face it, making abortion illegal does nothing to decrease the number of abortions around the world. Either women are dying from trying to terminate a pregnancy, or they're terminating a pregnancy in a safe and clean environment.

But apparently statistics don't matter. What matters is branding women as killers, shaming them into carrying a pregnancy if they don't want to, and threatening them with either hellfire, social exile, or jailtime if they want to not be pregnant. This is why there is a contention that a war on women exists.

Jail doesnt seem to stop gangviolence either.

Maybe we should make an exception for them and look at alternative solutions, while making sure we dont send them to jail.

Ironically, that would make more sense, given that they do become better dealers after jail.

You have a serious problem with analogies.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I am not 100% sure what you mean about this. Are you meaning if a womans life is in danger? Or her opinion on the matter? Fort yes we have discussed that d yes the woman's life is important. The other point I'm trying to get across would state that a woman is the sole decider of what is or is not murder. With similar logic a woman could murder her 5 her old son because he us interfering with her rights. I'm not saying that WAS your argument I just wasn't sure what our point was to be honest.

Start with her opinion on the matter. It IS happening inside her body. Last I heard, pregnancies generally happen inside the uterus of a woman. Hence, my argument was to include the life of the woman who is carrying the pregnancy in the discussion of "when does life begin?"

It isn't as if the zygote is developing inside a purely objective piece of something. At least *I* don't think the zygote is developing inside a purely objective piece of something.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Jewish tradition (as an example) posits that a foetus is not a Nephesh 'living soul' until it has drawn it's first independent breath. I find that a useful definition.

Yes interesting that the Hebrew word for soul means just that- breath. Yet many pro life Christians argue with this.

 

[freethinker44]

Jewish tradition (as an example) posits that a foetus is not a Nephesh 'living soul' until it has drawn it's first independent breath. I find that a useful definition.

I'm not Jewish.

 

[Kalidas]

Jewish tradition (as an example) posits that a foetus is not a Nephesh 'living soul' until it has drawn it's first independent breath. I find that a useful definition.

That would warent the killing of children who born with cerebral polsy.

 

[freethinker44]

Yes interesting that the Hebrew word for soul means just that- breath. Yet many pro life Christians argue with this.

I'm not a pro-life Christian.

Nor do I believe in a soul.

 

[Kalidas]

Start with her opinion on the matter. It IS happening inside her body. Last I heard, pregnancies generally happen inside the uterus of a woman. Hence, my argument was to include the life of the woman who is carrying the pregnancy in the discussion of "when does life begin?"

It isn't as if the zygote is developing inside a purely objective piece of something. At least *I* don't think the zygote is developing inside a purely objective piece of something.

Okay that still goes back to when does life begin. Sure.1st term abortions are fine by me it is just a lump of cells. 2nd and 3rd term is where I have issue. Yes women should have the majority opinion in. this matter yet that does not mean that they should be given the power to be judge j,ury and execitioner. again similar logic could be used for murder of a child. Let's say a woman decides her child is not "alive" till he is 18 what say you then?

That is an extremely and crazy side story I know, I just wanted to apply your logic to a similar problem to see.if it still stands.