Choice

Don't watch the news eh?
Do you honestly think that the news portrays ordinary people living ordinary lives?
reasonable people prevail in most western liberal democracies. Why should the US be any different? Admittedly, the US is fifty years at least behind everyone else in solving the abortion controversy, but it will come eventually.
Oh I forgot. I know nothing about the world outside of CARM.
Sadly, for some people, that would be a true remark rather than an attempt at irony.
 
Do you honestly think that the news portrays ordinary people living ordinary lives?

The news, the internet, et al, give us countless ways to observe ordinary people the majority of whom are half nuts esp. in the US.

reasonable people prevail in most western liberal democracies.

That's quite a nice sentiment you have there but the reality doesn't bear it out.

Why should the US be any different? Admittedly, the US is fifty years at least behind everyone else in solving the abortion controversy, but it will come eventually.

Sadly, for some people, that would be a true remark rather than an attempt at irony.

Take yourself for example. You apparently seem to think you are quite reasonable.
 
The news, the internet, et al, give us countless ways to observe ordinary people the majority of whom are half nuts esp. in the US.
The news and news casters may well be nuts, driven as they are by the need to get as many people as possible to watch their haemaroid cream commercial.
That's quite a nice sentiment you have there but the reality doesn't bear it out.
You must live in a nutty neighbourhood. In real life virtually every person I meet is reasonable.
Take yourself for example. You apparently seem to think you are quite reasonable.
I have certainly tried to be so in this conversation, since you started it by bewailing the lack of reason in the abortion debate. A sentiment I agree with by the way. You presumably consider yourself to be reasonable, as do I. Can we have a reasonable conversation about the issues raised by abortion? I am quite willing to do so, and also to let others judge where the reasonable voice lies. Do you dare do that, or is sniping all you are up for?
 
Take yourself for example. You apparently seem to think you are quite reasonable.
Temujin is a reasonable person, yes.

That's not to say we agree on everything; thinking like I do isn't what makes him reasonable.

Humility, and a willingness to honestly entertain ideas he may not be familiar with (or immediately accept) is.

---

Try it.
 
Humility, and a willingness to honestly entertain ideas he may not be familiar with (or immediately accept) is.
So Temujin isn't reasonable then. For example, he puts posters on ignore.

However we should be looking at the arguments, not the person.
 
Despite what some of its citizens obviously believe, the US is not "most Western countries".
Point taken but in the UK abortion limits were discussed last year in Parliament, as they have been elsewhere in Europe.
Its pretty much an on going discussion rather than the fait accompli Temujin claimed.
 
The news and news casters may well be nuts, driven as they are by the need to get as many people as possible to watch their haemaroid cream commercial.

You must live in a nutty neighbourhood. In real life virtually every person I meet is reasonable.

That's what all nutty people think.

I have certainly tried to be so in this conversation, since you started it by bewailing the lack of reason in the abortion debate. A sentiment I agree with by the way. You presumably consider yourself to be reasonable, as do I. Can we have a reasonable conversation about the issues raised by abortion? I am quite willing to do so, and also to let others judge where the reasonable voice lies. Do you dare do that, or is sniping all you are up for?
 
I'll take that as a no, you don't want, or are not capable of a reasonable conversation. Colour me surprised.

You should take that as me deciding there is no hope of reasonable conversation with you.

But I'm sure you'll take it however you like. Have fun.
 
"My Body My Choice"
Is this a right for all women?
In every day society we do have the ability to chose, but we can forfeit that ability when we make poor choices, when we choose foolishly.
If I choose to steal, then I get arrested and if I'm put in jail I lose that ability to chose because of my foolish choices.

And it's not even a social construct but "written into" nature. If I choose to walk in front of a bus, I lose my ability to make other choices.
It's also something that takes time to witness. For example, if a person gets drunk, they may get away with it. But after a while consequences do arise.

So two things with this. 1. Are there things that if a person chooses poorly then they DON'T lose the ability to make future choices?
2. Should this apply even in some cases to abortion. Where under certain circumstances a woman should not have the ability to chose because they are foolish and make bad choices? If not, why does it seem like this topic is exempt when so many other scenarios aren't?

I hope that I was clear. If there's anything that wasn't please let me know.
It is important to note that those who call themselves "pro-choice" tend not to really be "pro-choice." When you ask them whether they support one's right to "choose" to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense, all of a sudden, they aren't for "choice." "No. Guns are bad. We have to get them off the street" they say.

When you ask them if they support "school choice" so that poor women can "choose" to send their children to better schools they otherwise could not afford, once again "pro-choicers" all of a sudden aren't "pro-choice." "No. You will go to the public school we tell you to go, you will pay your school taxes, and you will stop whining." "Government knows best" they say.

When you ask them if they support your right to choose to run your business according to the dictates of your conscience and choose not to involve your business in things you find morally abhorrent--such as a gay wedding, once again, they are not "pro-choice." "If you want to run a bakery, and a gay couple orders you to decorate a wedding cake with signs and symbols you find morally abhorrent, too bad. The gay couple has the right to get married and you have an obligation to bake them a cake and decorate it with signs and symbols you find morally abhorrent because government says so." Why they can't just go to a business that caterers specifically to gay couples and gay weddings---is never explained.

When you ask them if you had the right to "choose" to attend religious services during the pandemic---and you are willing to assume the risks because you feel worship of your God trumps any danger a virus poses, once again, pro-choicers aren't so "pro-choice." "No. You will not go to Church, you are selfish if you want to do that. You will stay in your home and not come out until we tell you its alright. Government knows best."

My point? "Pro-choice" is a dog whistle, a euphemism for abortion. People who claim to be "pro-choice" aren't pro-choice at all. What they are is "pro-abortion." That needs to be understood. I refuse to allow abortion supporters to frame the debate as choice. Choice is a lie and always has been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Sadly, no. It should be.
Why doesn't the child have a "choice" in the matter? Why should a woman get to murder their unborn children at will, sir?
Yes, and?
And----I think the point is that you cannot have "choice" without "consequence." This is something a lot of abortion supporters seem not to grasp. They want "choice," but they do not want "consequence."
If I'm understanding you correctly, then obviously yes. I can choose to drive drunk...a poor choice. I still get to make the choice the next day whether to go and collect my car from the tree I wrapped it around. I still get to choose whether to drive drunk the next night or not. I can choose to cheat on my wife...I still get to to choose the next day whether to admit it to her, conceal it, do it again...
Correct--the point is that if you get caught---you can get arrested and loose your freedom. This is because when you drive drunk, you put other people's lives on the line.
The topic isn't exempt - anti-choicers just want to make it that way because of their desire to take rights away from women (and all the other reasons for being anti-choice, none of them good).
But WHY does a woman have a fundamental right to murder her unborn child? Does a woman have the right to murder their born children? Then why should they have the right to murder their unborn children?
 
Choice is taken away by society because of some perceived benefit to society - removing a an offender's choices by confining them, for example, is deemed to benefit society as a whole.
Correct: when behaviors are deemed harmful for society, those behaviors tend to be illegal.
Only in a rigidly Darwinian society, and only where the choice's consequences cannot be mitigated. If I walk in front of a bus but don't die immediately, society swoops in with measures to try to keep me alive.

100% "You made your bed..." societies... are there any?
Probably not. Though some would argue--me being one of them--that people need to be allowed to face the consequences of their actions. For example--the left tends to see criminals as victims--hence, they make excuses for criminals and defend them, rather than allowing them to face the consequences for their actions. When people do not have to face the consequences of their poor choices, they are enabled to continue to make those choices.
Yes. Lots and lots of them.

Medical interventions for self-"inflicted" injuries/conditions, for one.
That tends to be a different case because people who self-injure tend to have a mental disorder. In other words--their ability to choose--is compromised.
No - IMO, under no circumstances should a person be forced to be pregnant when they don't wish to be.
Well, we agree on something. No women should be forced to get pregnant. Any woman who does not want to get pregnant may choose not to get pregnant. Women have the right to choose. No woman who wants to be a mother should be forced to get pregnant and be a mother.
 
Back
Top