Poll: Would you prefered to have been aborted?

[Caligirl]

Say a doctor shows up at your door and says you have to have a kidney removed to save another person's life. You don't have a choice, it is the law.

Do you believe that the government has the right to make you donate a kidney to save a life?

 

[Gunny]

Say a doctor shows up at your door and says you have to have a kidney removed to save another person's life. You don't have a choice, it is the law.

Do you believe that the government has the right to make you donate a kidney to save a life?

 

[CA95380]

Say a doctor shows up at your door and says you have to have a kidney removed to save another person's life. You don't have a choice, it is the law.

Do you believe that the government has the right to make you donate a kidney to save a life?

No, the government does not have the right.

But the government is not forcing anyone to have an abortion, either. So what's the point of this particular question in this discussion?

 

[Caligirl]

No, you have it backwards.

The parallel is that by making abortion illegal, a woman's body is legally at the mercy of another.

The mother is analogous to the person who has to donate a kidney, because there is a physical cost to childbearing.

 

[CA95380]

No, you have it backwards.

The parallel is that by making abortion illegal, a woman's body is legally at the mercy of another.

The mother is analogous to the person who has to donate a kidney, because there is a physical cost to childbearing.

This is why it is important to "quote" whoever you are responding to. IMO

 

[dilloduck]

Damn interesting conversation that you are having with yourself here !

 

[Anguille]

Damn interesting conversation that you are having with yourself here !

LOL!

You had to be there. I was waiting for granny to go let loose on Silence. Looks like now Caligirl might be on her radar. Perhaps they are next on her To Ignore List.

How was your golf game?

 

[Anguille]

No, you have it backwards.

The parallel is that by making abortion illegal, a woman's body is legally at the mercy of another.

The mother is analogous to the person who has to donate a kidney, because there is a physical cost to childbearing.

Thanks for spelling that out for the dim witted.

 

[dilloduck]

LOL!

You had to be there. I was waiting for granny to go let loose on Silence. Looks like now Caligirl might be on her radar. Perhaps they are next on her To Ignore List.

How was your golf game?

great--played pretty well but it got pretty warm out there towards the end.
Messed up the first hole but I think it was cuz i was still pondering Bone's thread about anal sex. Seeds ? Who would have ever thunk it ?

 

[CA95380]

great--played pretty well but it got pretty warm out there towards the end.
Messed up the first hole but I think it was cuz i was still pondering Bone's thread about anal sex. Seeds ? Who would have ever thunk it ?

Duck ... you can quit quoting the little kid (in time out) whenever you want to now. Because if I wanted to read his shit I would not have put him on /ignore! lol

 

[Anguille]

Not if you really understand that as far as some people in charge are concerned YOU and people like you are their property.

Touché

Yes...if we really owned anything, that would be the case.

Are you free to come and go across international borders?

ARe you free to take any substance into your body?

Are you free to commit suicide?

Are you free not to pay taxes on your LABOR?

If you're a man 18 or older, are you free NOT to sign up for selective service?

Are you free NOT to have a social security number?

The freedom that we worship in this nation is rather how shall I say this without sounding like a lunatic? somewhat limited.

On that specific issue, I completely agree with my libertarian brothers and sisters who feel the noose of police state tightening around their necks.

Freedom in ANY society is a delusion.

At best we in this nation have rights, not freedoms.

Well said.

And even those rights are something that most of us only have in THEORY.

Am I free to be a practicing Rastafarian? No. Ergo I do not have religious freedom regardless of what the Constitution tells me.

Do I really have the right to privacy? No. On the flimsiest evidence my whole life can be invaded by just about any cop that chooses to invade my privacy who can find even someone so nominally versed in the law as a Justice of the Peace to sign a warrant, regardless of what the Constitution tells me.

Do I really have the RIGHT to bear arms? Not really. Not unless my local police chief says its okay with him.

Do I really have the right to a fair and speedy trial? Not unless I can agree that the trial is fair and speedy, no, I do NOT.

The so-called freedoms we Americans think we have, as as emphemeral as the morning dew, folks.

In the harsh glare of de facto reality, we have no rights of freedom whatever.

Your property can be taken and YOU have to prove to a court that you own it, not the other way around.

You right to do with you body as you choose is serverly limited.

And if you don't have your freedom to own property, and you don['t have absolutely control over your body, then honestly...what freedom do you really have?

You have the freedom to delude yourself, I suppose, that you are free.

You make many good points, I don't see it in such a negative light though.
I'm happy to relinquish certain freedoms for the peace of mind that comes with knowing I can walk down any street in my city unmolested and unharmed thanks to an effective police force or with knowing that my employer may not poison me with cigarette smoke or expose me to other known health hazards or from having had a childhood that meant - even though at the time I would have rather been outside playing - I learned to read and write and understand long division. Without my government sponsored education, I might not even understand the concept of freedom and rights.

Certain freedoms are worth giving up in order to live in a civilized and orderly society. But some are not. We must always be vigilant that fascist groups don't succeed in pushing government in favor of their abusive agendas.

 

[Anguille]

great--played pretty well but it got pretty warm out there towards the end.
Messed up the first hole but I think it was cuz i was still pondering Bone's thread about anal sex. Seeds ? Who would have ever thunk it ?

LOL! I missed seeing that thread. Maybe a good thing?

 

[dilloduck]

Touché Well said.

You make many good points, I don't see it in such a negative light though.
I'm happy to relinquish certain freedoms for the peace of mind that comes with knowing I can walk down any street in my city unmolested and unharmed thanks to an effective police force or with knowing that my employer may not poison me with cigarette smoke or expose me to other known health hazards or from having had a childhood that meant - even though at the time I would have rather been outside playing - I learned to read and write and understand long division. Without my government sponsored education, I might not even understand the concept of freedom and rights.

Certain freedoms are worth giving up in order to live in a civilized and orderly society. But some are not. We must always be vigilant that fascist groups don't succeed in pushing government in favor of their abusive agendas.

Aren't we all free to do whatever we want to do providing we are willing to deal with the consequences ? I think the rights we have are actually protections we have against being punished for doing certain things.

 

[Anguille]

I think the rights we have are actually protections we have against being punished for doing certain things.

huh?

 

[dilloduck]

huh?

ok--I'll try it again. We are free to do whatever we want to do. For instance, I am free to rob a bank. However there is nothing that protects me from being arrested for it.
I am also free to mow my lawn. I AM protected from being arrested while mowing.
Isn't that the way it works ?

 

[glockmail]

You need to include the option Sometimes.

That's what I would pick because sometimes life really sucks that bad. LIke when your kid dies.

Abortion usually results in your kid dying.

 

[Caligirl]

I would never abort, and I want abortion rates to drop. There are a hell of a lot of other options out there. I would love it if people always chose life. I think it is my libertarian streak that makes me think it isn't *my* place to tell another woman what *her* job and morality should be.

I am wondering how this issue is best addressed, and how RW/abortion/choice compares to other scenarios.

Overturning RW seems less good (restricts current liberties) than educating, reducing poverty, making adoption more of an option, etc - so that people choose life of their own free will.

The idea that to refuse to donate a kidney to save a life would be illegal, (as analogous to refusing to donate body stores and other physical costs to grow a baby) seems like it is worth thinking through.

Both (overturning RW and legislation that you'd have to donate a kidney if you were the best match), would be "pro life." So why is the response to the scenarios different?

I would of course also choose to donate a kidney. Just ask my driver's license. But I don't think the government should make a law that everyone has to.

 

[Caligirl]

This is why it is important to "quote" whoever you are responding to. IMO

The response was to Missourian, whose feedback I am curious about, and it was right below his post.

I usually quote, like here, unless it is right below the post I am responding to.

 

[Anguille]

I would never abort, and I want abortion rates to drop. There are a hell of a lot of other options out there. I would love it if people always chose life.

I am wondering how this issue is best addressed, and how RW/abortion/choice compares to other scenarios.

Overturning RW seems less good (restricts current liberties) than educating, reducing poverty, making adoption more of an option, etc - so that people choose life of their own free will.

The idea that to refuse to donate a kidney to save a life would be illegal, (as analogous to refusing to donate body stores and other physical costs to grow a baby) seems like it is worth thinking through.

Both (overturning RW and legislation that you'd have to donate a kidney if you were the best match), would be "pro life." So why is the response to the scenarios different?

I would of course also choose to donate a kidney. Just ask my driver's license. But I don't think the government should make a law that everyone has to.

Nice post. Not aborting, however, does not necessarily mean choosing life.

 

[dilloduck]

I would never abort, and I want abortion rates to drop. There are a hell of a lot of other options out there. I would love it if people always chose life. I think it is my libertarian streak that makes me think it isn't *my* place to tell another woman what *her* job and morality should be.

I am wondering how this issue is best addressed, and how RW/abortion/choice compares to other scenarios.

Overturning RW seems less good (restricts current liberties) than educating, reducing poverty, making adoption more of an option, etc - so that people choose life of their own free will.

The idea that to refuse to donate a kidney to save a life would be illegal, (as analogous to refusing to donate body stores and other physical costs to grow a baby) seems like it is worth thinking through.

Both (overturning RW and legislation that you'd have to donate a kidney if you were the best match), would be "pro life." So why is the response to the scenarios different?

I would of course also choose to donate a kidney. Just ask my driver's license. But I don't think the government should make a law that everyone has to.

I think I should be able to sell my kidney to the highest bidder.