Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

The GOP is not crazy.

This should be like required reading or something.  Seriously.

I've been trying to push this kind of attitude in regards to various issues for a long time.

[Vector]

It was unethical to ignore AIDS because it was only a "gay disease," so it didn't matter until it was too late.

Every anti-abortion believer out there is a person who believes that women should not have control over their reproductive systems.  I don't think she's just talking about people who are anti-abortion.  She's talking about the specific behavior of the GOP.

[MadocComadrin]

That's deceptive really: they believe that there's a life being taken, and it isn't justified solely by the fact that it's inside a woman who has to carry it around for 9 months. It's nothing against women, and those who would try to make it out to be are being dishonest.

[SalmonGod]

That's deceptive really: they believe that there's a life being taken, and it isn't justified solely by the fact that it's inside a woman who has to carry it around for 9 months. It's nothing against women, and those who would try to make it out to be are being dishonest.

I think it can be any mixture of both, depending on the individual.

[RedKing]

That's deceptive really: they believe that there's a life being taken, and it isn't justified solely by the fact that it's inside a woman who has to carry it around for 9 months. It's nothing against women, and those who would try to make it out to be are being dishonest.

It's devaluing the woman over the fetus. So yeah, it is at least in part against women.

[Frumple]

... there's also the fact that, yanno', not allowing abortion is, in fact, saying that women should not have control over their reproductive systems. Whether it's coached in terms of saving life or not is irrelevant to that, specifically. All the whole 'saving life' thing is saying is that the assumed life is worth more than the woman's control over her own body.

That's somewhat a defensible position, but only if you assume the potential life is worth more than the person's choice.

[GlyphGryph]

And those who are against both Abortion AND Birth Control?

I don't think you can argue that stance as pro-life, at all - it's specifically "women shouldn't be allowed control over whether or not they give birth or get pregnant"

[Montague]

So, this is about the concept of self-ownership. The idea that people are the sole proprietors of their own body, at least.

If people own their bodies and whatever might be growing in it, then do people say, have the right to sell a kidney? How about both kidneys?

[FearfulJesuit]

I think, yes, it is a defensible position if you allow abortion when there are extenuating circumstances and take it as a conclusion from the axiom that life is the highest priority, all things considered. That, at least, is my position (and unlike many others who share my opinion, I'm against the death penalty, for the same reason. A pro-life leftist? what's that?)

The real problem is that I do think modern culture has become a bit too casual about its sex life, and it's a biological pity that it isn't the guys that end up carrying the shame and/or unwanted results of being mansluts at least equally to their female counterparts.

[GlyphGryph]

Montague - a right to ownership does not imply a right to distribute freely on the market. Why would you even conflate the two?

[Montague]

Montague - a right to ownership does not imply a right to distribute freely on the market. Why would you even conflate the two?

Why not? If you own your body, internal organs included, then you are entitled to do whatever you like with it, assuming you don't intrude on other people's rights and all that. Why would the rights afforded by self-ownership stop at the point where there is a price tag involved?

[Vector]

Heck, why can't the government force you to give up your spare kidney or chunks of your liver, when there's people going without and dying--even children?  Because it's an invasive and painful, life-threatening sort of thing?

Oh... wait!

[Criptfeind]

Well, the article seemed to stress contraceptives more then even abortions, so I don't think it is unfair to say that the people it was talking are sorta like that.

What I mean is, anti abortion is a defensible point of view (at least, in my eyes as a morality thing), but anti contraceptives really is not. At least for and against reasonable people. And, given that, the conclusion of the article seems accurate enough, I feel that it fails to give the benefit of stupidity (or rather a lack of thought about ones own beliefs.)

[GlyphGryph]

Why would the rights afforded by self-ownership stop at the point where there is a price tag involved?

For the same reason the right to ownership of your car stops being an "everything is legal" excuse when you start running over children with it?
Because laws governing commerce don't restrict autonomy. Because when it starts involving the relationship between you and another person, it is no longer about autonomy. Might as well argue that we should have the right to murder other people, because autonomy means I can put my knife holding hand wherever I want.

It's a stupid non sequiter of a straw man - organ selling has zilch to do with autonomy, as far as I can tell, and you've made no case for it at least.

You know you are, legally, allowed to give away your kidneys, right? It's simply illegal for the other person to buy them. Since they have no right to autonomy over your body, the issues really aren't related.

[Montague]

Heck, why can't the government force you to give up your spare kidney or chunks of your liver, when there's people going without and dying--even children?  Because it's an invasive and painful, life-threatening sort of thing?

Well, right. The government cutting you up for spare parts is completely contrary to the concept of self-ownership and individual rights.

So are you saying the government, or community has a right to an individual's body in any circumstance? Or in no circumstance?

You know you are, legally, allowed to give away your kidneys, right? It's simply illegal for the other person to buy them. Since they have no right to autonomy over your body, the issues really aren't related.

No, obviously stabbing somebody with a knife is intruding on that person's right to live. Individual rights goes right along with self-ownership.

A sale would be a mutually consenting thing. How does buying an organ infringe on a person's autonomy if it was a voluntary exchange? Who is being harmed in this situation? How would accepting a donated kidney differ?