Pro-Choice or Anti-Rape?

[JBeukema]

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?

 

[Phoenix]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

 

[Zoom-boing]

"anri-rape"?

 

[JBeukema]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

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.

 

[JBeukema]

"anri-rape"?

Typo. Apparently, you can't change poll answers like you can the regular post.

I'm watching a movie and I neglected to proofread

 

[manifold]

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.

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.

 

[Phoenix]

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?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

And what are those boundaries, if not 'harm to another'

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).

Is not killing someone generally considered just as bad as raping them, if not worse?

We are programmed to believe - a majority anyway - that women should have complete control over their bodies

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?

However, a man exercising his reproductive prerogative in the scenario you described above is a different kettle of fish altogether.

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.

 

[Phoenix]

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?

 

[JBeukema]

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?

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)

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?

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. 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

 

[Meister]

"anri-rape"?

Typo. Apparently, you can't change poll answers like you can the regular post.

I'm watching a movie and I neglected to proofread

Fixed that for you

 

[syrenn]

Its a circle jerk question.

 

[Charles_Main]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

Sure is. Does do a good job of exposing the indefensible position many "pro Choicers" hold. It's all about choice to them, just don't mention that many times, the fetus aborted could have been a viable life outside the womb, and had NO CHOICE at all.

 

[syrenn]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

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.

If your "another" is inside your body and living off of you, yes you can what you want. If said "another" is NOT inside your body, no you cant do what you want.

You have control of your body and no other.

 

[syrenn]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

Sure is. Does do a good job of exposing the indefensible position many "pro Choicers" hold. It's all about choice to them, just don't mention that many times, the fetus aborted could have been a viable life outside the womb, and had NO CHOICE at all.

Cesarean section what ever it is out, sit it on the table and let it live. No abortion required. If it does not "live" then it is not a viable life.

 

[JBeukema]

You have control of your body and no other.

Except when it comes to killing that other?

And how, exactly, does geographical location and moving three feet to the left decide whether killing a defenseless child is okay or not?

What about killing it during crowning?

Or killing her when she's halfway out? Or when one toe is in? Or when the umbilical cord is still attached and the afterbirth hasn't been expelled yet?

 

[JBeukema]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

Sure is. Does do a good job of exposing the indefensible position many "pro Choicers" hold. It's all about choice to them, just don't mention that many times, the fetus aborted could have been a viable life outside the womb, and had NO CHOICE at all.

Cesarean section what ever it is out, sit it on the table and let it live. No abortion required. If it does not "live" then it is not a viable life.

So you're not viable until you have can find your own food when set down and left to die?

So... seven? Ten? 16 so you can get a job?

 

[Charles_Main]

This is a trick question, isn't it?

Sure is. Does do a good job of exposing the indefensible position many "pro Choicers" hold. It's all about choice to them, just don't mention that many times, the fetus aborted could have been a viable life outside the womb, and had NO CHOICE at all.

Cesarean section what ever it is out, sit it on the table and let it live. No abortion required. If it does not "live" then it is not a viable life.

Science does not agree. Babies Taken out of the womb Many Many weeks early can, and do survive. Yes they require help to do so, but then who are we do deny them that? Take it out and sit it on the table and if it lives it is viable? Really? I disagree, I think if it can be taken from the womb and survive with Medical Care, it was viable. Using your logic Human Beings are not viable until the are old enough to feed themselves. Set a 1 year old on a table and leave them, and they are going to die.

Me personally I have always maintained I support the right to an Abortion in most cases. It is only when I see it abused and used as nothing more than belated Birth control for Irresponsibility chicks, that I have a problem with it.

However that does not keep me from seeing the Hypocrisy of the "pro Choice" people. Often times the same lefties who support your right to an Abortion on the basis of Freedom of Choice. Would be more than happy to tell you, you can not eat fatty foods, and you can not own a gun. Or tell you, it is ok that Union give you no choice about paying dues.

Abortion is always going to be a very Polarizing subject, that is for sure.

In a perfect world it would only be used in extreme cases, and not like it is the VAST MAJORITY of the time in the US. The Vast Majority of Abortions in this country are not carried out because there is some risk to the mother, or Birth Defects to the baby. They are carried out because someone fucked, was not careful and got pregnant, and now they do not want to live with the consequences of the CHOICES they made.

 

[JBeukema]

It depends tigerbob

WTF?!
​

 

[Foxfyre]

I wish mostly that the abortion issue had been left to the states or local communities. But if it MUST be a federal issue, then I wish for strict enforcement of Roe v Wade which, if its intent was strictly enforced, would be a reasonable compromise. The all or nothing arguments accomplish little more than hard feelings in both the pro choice and pro life camps.

In my opinion, so long as I have ability to choose, I have an unalienable right to do whatever I wish with my body until participation by somebody else is required. My rights end at the point somebody else is required to contribute or participate.