Pro-Choice or Anti-Rape?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JBeukema, Apr 2, 2011.

?

Pro-Choice or Anti-Rape?

  1. Pro-Choice

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Anti-Rape

    50.0%
  3. It depends

    50.0%
  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Do you believe in a man's right to choose what he does and control his own body, or do you believe your right to do as you will does not extend to harming others?
     
  2. Phoenix
    Offline

    Phoenix fideli certa merces

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    13,040
    Thanks Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    out of the ashes
    Ratings:
    +2,363
    This is a trick question, isn't it?
     
  3. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,062
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,122
    "anri-rape"? :wtf:
     
  4. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Nope. It's a simple matter of whether or not the right to do as you will with you body extends to acts which harm another or not.

    So, does my right to do as I will with my body include harming another? Or are suicide bombings (it is, after all, my body i strap the bomb to), rape (after all, I'm just exercising my right to use my body as i will [overpowering you] just as you do the same with your own body [physically resist or go along with it]), and punching you in the face (moving my body through space) wrong because they cause harm another?

    You can't have it both ways. Either my right to do as I will with and to my own body extends to acts which cause harm to another or it does not.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  5. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Typo. Apparently, you can't change poll answers like you can the regular post.

    I'm watching a movie and I neglected to proofread
     
  6. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,693
    Thanks Received:
    7,227
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,734
    We can and do. Therefore by simple empirical observation your logic is flawed.

    Better go read another book and see if you can suss it out. :thup:
     
  7. Phoenix
    Offline

    Phoenix fideli certa merces

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    13,040
    Thanks Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    out of the ashes
    Ratings:
    +2,363
    But it is a trick question - in a sense.

    In some cases, we, as a society believe in one's "right" to have control over our bodies but only within certain boundaries. Or more correctly, not outside of specific boundaries.

    Your question: does a man have the "right" to rape a woman, if that's what he so desires - to have personal "control" over his being or does he forfeit that "right" by virtue of causing harm to another person's being

    VS.

    does a woman have the "right" to have an abortion if she so desires - to have personal "control" over her being or does she forfeit that "right" by virtue of causing harm to another person's being (the baby).

    We are programmed to believe - a majority anyway - that women should have complete control over their bodies, specifically in regards to their reproductive system. However, a man exercising his reproductive prerogative in the scenario you described above is a different kettle of fish altogether. We do love our double-standards, don't we?
     
  8. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    And what are those boundaries, if not 'harm to another'
    Is not killing someone generally considered just as bad as raping them, if not worse?
    And that's fine. The baby is not your body. It is another human being. That is a simple biological fact. If you want to claim killing it is cool, you have to tell me exactly at what point killing it stops being okay? When it's halfway out? When one toe is in? When it starts to crown? When her water breaks?

    At what point does what change that makes killing a baby go from an okay thing to a not okay thing? Or is killing you always okay?

    No, it's not. Both are exercising their will and control over their body and acting in a manner that causes harm to another.

    There is no fundamental difference between rape, shooting you in the face, punching you in the kidneys, or ripping you apart limb by limp or poisoning you or sucking your brains out or killing you by denying you the environment you can survive in (eg: holding your head underwater and letting nature take its course).

    If you want to claim there is, you have to show at what moment something fundamental about the nature of the child changes that makes killing her go from an okay thing to a not okay thing.
     
  9. Phoenix
    Offline

    Phoenix fideli certa merces

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    13,040
    Thanks Received:
    2,362
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    out of the ashes
    Ratings:
    +2,363
    I wasn't advocating women killing babies or men raping women ... or anyone else.

    I was merely breaking down the question - showing the parallels. It is a double standard for sure and I'll be the first to say so.

    My youngest nephew was born at 28 weeks. Theoretically, late-term abortions can still be done then, right? So why do people think that if a baby is in utero at that time, they are not considered a child and can be scrambled, as opposed to him being delivered (as he was) and him being an absolutely beautiful child - viable and everything?
     
  10. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Someone can be killed at any time, so a pregnancy can be theoretically 'aborted' (you know, the way we abort an attempt to copy a file in DOS) up until the moment the pregnancy otherwise ends (birth, c-section, or miscarriage)

    You'd have to ask them. Apparently they think that your geographical location has something to do with whether or not killing you is okay. :dunno: In that regard, they're much like the Nationalists who have no problem with bombs and napalm killing and maiming children so long as they live someplace else
     

Share This Page