| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2012 01:28:14 PM · #1101 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I knew you'd zero in on your poll results, but how about this: over half of women support abortion. That is a majority of women. This conclusion is based on your numbers, and it would seem that a near majority of men also support, yet, these laws persist because of some extremist views. |
This is the point where I'm supposed to talk about the tyranny of the majority, right? That's the way the conversation goes on other topics.
Anyway, I understand the poll results, but they do not support your assertion that "the vast majority" of women want abortion legal. I'd also say that even if only 40-45% of the population supports abortion being illegal it is hardly an "extremist" position. The 2009 poll does not have a majority of Americans (or even a majority of women) supporting abortion being legal (assuming the total % is a blend of the 50% of women and 44% of men being "pro"). Probably the bigger message is there are large numbers of people on both sides. Your own opinion is getting too much in the way of your seeing the big picture.
EDIT; whoops. fixed typo.
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 13:37:20. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 01:31:51 PM · #1102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
I knew you'd zero in on your poll results, but how about this: over half of women support abortion. That is a majority of women. This conclusion is based on your numbers, and it would seem that a near majority of men also support, yet, these laws persist because of some extremist views. |
This is the point where I'm supposed to talk about the tyranny of the majority, right? That's the way the conversation goes on other topics.
Anyway, I understand the poll results, but they do not support your assertion that "the vast majority" of women want abortion legal. I'd also say that even if only 40-45% of the population supports abortion being illegal it is hardly an "extremist" position. Your own opinion is getting too much in the way of your seeing the big picture. |
Did you read the headnote I quoted from Brooks? Supporting the legality of abortion doesn't mean someone is "for" abortion. I support abortion legality because I believe a woman should be able to make that choice, not because I would have an abortion or want to have one.
And so, what do you have to say about the SCC's reasoning in Brooks?
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 13:32:57. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 01:31:55 PM · #1103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
The reality is that only women can get pregnancy and the vast majority of women do not want access to abortion to be so seriously restricted. |
You saw the polling results right? You consider a 55-39 gap or a 50-42 gap to be a "vast majority"?
Paul, thanks a million! I had no idea those tags even existed! |
In national electoral politics I think those numbers are usually considered a "landslide" conferring a "mandate" on the victorious party.
You're welcome ... I just wish those tags didn't also double-space all the lines -- takes up way too much room. :-( |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 01:44:23 PM · #1104 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Did you read the headnote I quoted from Brooks? Supporting the legality of abortion doesn't mean someone is "for" abortion. I support abortion legality because I believe a woman should be able to make that choice, not because I would have an abortion or want to have one.
And so, what do you have to say about the SCC's reasoning in Brooks? |
I think we're starting to lose sight of the original argument I brought up yesterday. We don't need to rehash specific arguments pro/against abortion, but rather address the question of whether people against abortion are against it because either a) they are men or b) women exclusively have babies. I do not see evidence of either case. I presented two pieces of information that would weigh against a) or b). First, I showed that polling results do not show a large discrepancy between men and women on their attitude toward abortion (though we do see a small discrepancy does exist). Second, I pointed out that at least Judeo-Christian values have not changed over time and between societies when the prevailing view of who (ie. which gender) is "in control" of that decision. When men were in control in Greco-Roman times, it was considered wrong. When women were in control in modern times it is still considered wrong. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 01:49:53 PM · #1105 |
| birth control and abortion (which are two separate things) are gendered issues because they deal with pregnancy and only women can be pregnant, therefore, it is the rights of the woman that are being disproportionately affected, regardless of whether men or women are making the decision. My initial point to Cowboy was that I believe its easy for a man to say "no abortions" because its never going to be a decision that will affect his body. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 01:54:42 PM · #1106 |
Originally posted by frisca:
birth control and abortion (which are two separate things) are gendered issues because they deal with pregnancy and only women can be pregnant, therefore, it is the rights of the woman that are being disproportionately affected, regardless of whether men or women are making the decision. My initial point to Cowboy was that I believe its easy for a man to say "no abortions" because its never going to be a decision that will affect his body. |
I understand and disagree on both points. but we're going around in circles so we can, I guess, "agree to disagree". :) |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 01:56:12 PM · #1107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
In national electoral politics I think those numbers are usually considered a "landslide" conferring a "mandate" on the victorious party. |
And we both know that's silly. We haven't had "mandates" Since Clinton and Reagan won their second terms. I don't even know if such a thing exists other than to just say there is "broad support" for both those presidents.
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 13:56:37. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 02:18:28 PM · #1108 |
| what I "guess" is that we're never going to actually talk about the underlying issue of gender inequality as perpetuated via the "abortion debate". So be it. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 02:31:07 PM · #1109 |
Originally posted by frisca:
what I "guess" is that we're never going to actually talk about the underlying issue of gender inequality as perpetuated via the "abortion debate". So be it. |
I'm not just ignoring you frisca, but you don't seem to see that the agreed upon fact that only women have babies is relevant to the moral considerations. A woman has every bit of bodily autonomy as a man. That bodily autonomy, like a man, stops with regard to harming another person. IF we view a baby as a person then the bodily autonomy is limited to some extent (exactly how much is another debate). None of those principles are affected by the fact only one sex bears children other than one sex is presented with a unique application of the general principle. It does not, however, obviate the application of that principle. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 02:48:58 PM · #1110 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
what I "guess" is that we're never going to actually talk about the underlying issue of gender inequality as perpetuated via the "abortion debate". So be it. |
I'm not just ignoring you frisca, but you don't seem to see that the agreed upon fact that only women have babies is relevant to the moral considerations. A woman has every bit of bodily autonomy as a man. That bodily autonomy, like a man, stops with regard to harming another person. IF we view a baby as a person then the bodily autonomy is limited to some extent (exactly how much is another debate). None of those principles are affected by the fact only one sex bears children other than one sex is presented with a unique application of the general principle. It does not, however, obviate the application of that principle. |
You are very imprecise with your use of terminology, and I mean specifically your use of the word "baby" in this context. My understanding is that a baby is an individual who has already been born and exists autonomously, outside the body of another, and so is a person. A baby and a zygote are not the same thing.
In any event, I don't mean to hijack the discussion you're having, so carry on. :-) |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 03:21:57 PM · #1111 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
|
Really? Then why are so many children waiting to be adopted? This might just open your eyes a little further... |
Actually it shouldn't. For starters, the only number on that list that's relevent in this discussion are the new born statistics. Second, in the U.S. it's very difficult to adopt a baby because usually have to go through a private adoption agency and those can be very expensive. Not only that, but many of those agencies are religiously based and often you have to meet their own qualifications, if you know what I mean.
Fact of the matter is there are many who want to adopt but either can't afford it or can't qualify.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 03:30:24 PM · #1112 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
|
Really? Then why are so many children waiting to be adopted? This might just open your eyes a little further... |
Actually it shouldn't. For starters, the only number on that list that's relevent in this discussion are the new born statistics. Second, in the U.S. it's very difficult to adopt a baby because usually have to go through a private adoption agency and those can be very expensive. Not only that, but many of those agencies are religiously based and often you have to meet their own qualifications, if you know what I mean.
Fact of the matter is there are many who want to adopt but either can't afford it or can't qualify. |
So those children who aren't babies don't count? I'm pretty sure they all started out being babies. I don't get your point. These are children without homes, without families. Sure, maybe if you're young and healthy and white and the baby is also going to be healthy and white there might be people lining up to adopt. But otherwise, you can pretty much forget it. All those children on that list were given up for adoption. They're still waiting. Maybe, if, there were NONE waiting and a list of families to choose from more people would be willing to go the adoption route. Maybe not. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 03:40:23 PM · #1113 |
Originally posted by frisca:
what I "guess" is that we're never going to actually talk about the underlying issue of gender inequality as perpetuated via the "abortion debate". So be it. |
I'll talk about it. :-) The countries ranked highest in gender equality (meaning equality of: economic opportunity, educational opportunity, political participation, and equality of health outcomes between the sexes) all provide access to legal and safe abortions. The countries ranked lowest in gender equality have all outlawed abortion or have extreme restrictions on access to abortion. This is the sub-text in the abortion debate that has come to the fore in the United States recently, thank goodness, because now we can at least debate in the open the context around abortion, which is, at least for me, a choice between going back to the old gender roles for women, dependence in every social sphere and a degraded existence, or independence and true equality of opportunity and participation for women. If you want the latter, abortion, with all of its moral ambiguity, must be safe and legal. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 03:41:39 PM · #1114 |
Originally posted by frisca:
what I "guess" is that we're never going to actually talk about the underlying issue of gender inequality as perpetuated via the "abortion debate". So be it. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not just ignoring you frisca, but you don't seem to see that the agreed upon fact that only women have babies is relevant to the moral considerations. A woman has every bit of bodily autonomy as a man. That bodily autonomy, like a man, stops with regard to harming another person. IF we view a baby as a person then the bodily autonomy is limited to some extent (exactly how much is another debate). None of those principles are affected by the fact only one sex bears children other than one sex is presented with a unique application of the general principle. It does not, however, obviate the application of that principle. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You are very imprecise with your use of terminology, and I mean specifically your use of the word "baby" in this context. My understanding is that a baby is an individual who has already been born and exists autonomously, outside the body of another, and so is a person. A baby and a zygote are not the same thing. |
I'm still puzzled why any man thinks he should have any say in the decision of abortion.
It's not his body!
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:13:13 PM · #1115 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
|
Really? Then why are so many children waiting to be adopted? This might just open your eyes a little further... |
Actually it shouldn't. For starters, the only number on that list that's relevent in this discussion are the new born statistics. Second, in the U.S. it's very difficult to adopt a baby because usually have to go through a private adoption agency and those can be very expensive. Not only that, but many of those agencies are religiously based and often you have to meet their own qualifications, if you know what I mean.
Fact of the matter is there are many who want to adopt but either can't afford it or can't qualify. |
So those children who aren't babies don't count? I'm pretty sure they all started out being babies. I don't get your point. These are children without homes, without families. Sure, maybe if you're young and healthy and white and the baby is also going to be healthy and white there might be people lining up to adopt. But otherwise, you can pretty much forget it. All those children on that list were given up for adoption. They're still waiting. Maybe, if, there were NONE waiting and a list of families to choose from more people would be willing to go the adoption route. Maybe not. |
My point is people do adopt and do care and that there are issues with the adoption system that make it difficult for more people to adopt. What I don't get is your point or why you posted that link in the first place? How does a 9 year old taken away from his abusive parents (i.e. one of many reasons you end up in foster care) has to do with a mother deciding to abort or give the baby up for adoption? Your link includes everyone in the system who got there for different reasons. To use that as an argument against adoption AS an alternative to abortion makes no sense to me especially when new borns ARE the most desirable to adopt.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:15:06 PM · #1116 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by frisca:
what I "guess" is that we're never going to actually talk about the underlying issue of gender inequality as perpetuated via the "abortion debate". So be it. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not just ignoring you frisca, but you don't seem to see that the agreed upon fact that only women have babies is relevant to the moral considerations. A woman has every bit of bodily autonomy as a man. That bodily autonomy, like a man, stops with regard to harming another person. IF we view a baby as a person then the bodily autonomy is limited to some extent (exactly how much is another debate). None of those principles are affected by the fact only one sex bears children other than one sex is presented with a unique application of the general principle. It does not, however, obviate the application of that principle. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You are very imprecise with your use of terminology, and I mean specifically your use of the word "baby" in this context. My understanding is that a baby is an individual who has already been born and exists autonomously, outside the body of another, and so is a person. A baby and a zygote are not the same thing. |
I'm still puzzled why any man thinks he should have any say in the decision of abortion.
It's not his body! |
Curious Jeb, do you feel the same about other issues like that? Suppose your neigbhor was abusing their child. Would you just keep quiet and say nothing? After all it's not your child...
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:22:03 PM · #1117 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm still puzzled why any man thinks he should have any say in the decision of abortion.
It's not his body! |
I think the argument is that it's not hers either... except that separating a woman's body from the issue = abortion. Literally. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:24:01 PM · #1118 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm still puzzled why any man thinks he should have any say in the decision of abortion.
It's not his body! |
Originally posted by yanko:
Curious Jeb, do you feel the same about other issues like that? Suppose your neigbhor was abusing their child. Would you just keep quiet and say nothing? After all it's not your child... |
If you can explain how that's remotely an issue "like that", I might hazard an answer, but it's not even close.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:24:39 PM · #1119 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm still puzzled why any man thinks he should have any say in the decision of abortion.
It's not his body! |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I think the argument is that it's not hers either... except that separating a woman's body from the issue = abortion. Literally. |
I'd argue that for most of the term, it sure as heck is hers.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:39:14 PM · #1120 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This is slightly off subject but still in the same direction.
Abortion....In texas Planned Parenthood is fighting for funds...and they support abortion. I do not think that taxpayers should pay for abortions. In my opinon there are only 2 reasons to get an abortion....1. the mother's life is in jeapordy. If the mother is more than likely going to die during childbirth...ok it is understandable. 2. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant then I think she should have an abortion if she wants.
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
Ok now I'm off my soapbox |
Let us assume for one moment that you were the potential father... would you be prepared to take care of this child till it reached adulthood, pay for all expenses including university studies, health care and housing, and if not...why not.
I have heard a lot of men spout off on the responsibility or women, but seldom do I see men standing and hold themselves accountable for their actions.
Real easy to sit on the sidelines and make decisions for others, but when it come down to crunch time, no so much...lots of talk, no much action.
Ray |
I had to leave town for the day so was unable to reply to this.
Yes I am a man...and I have been in the position of getting a girl pregnant. I also stepped up to the plate and took her to dr appointments....and yes I was willing to support the baby. Unfortunately she did have a misscarriage. It is not the womans sole respnsibility to pay for / take care of a baby. It should be 50/50 all the way. Also both parents should spend equal time with the child even though they might not be together. Unfortunately in todays world that doesn't always happen and the woman may or may not know who the father is.
Places like planned parenthood should provide birth control to anyone that wants it (male or female) but not allow abortions except under certain circumstances
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:42:47 PM · #1121 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm still puzzled why any man thinks he should have any say in the decision of abortion.
It's not his body! |
Originally posted by yanko:
Curious Jeb, do you feel the same about other issues like that? Suppose your neigbhor was abusing their child. Would you just keep quiet and say nothing? After all it's not your child... |
If you can explain how that's remotely an issue "like that", I might hazard an answer, but it's not even close. |
I thought I did. In the case of abortion you're saying don't interfere because it's none of your business (i.e. not your body to decide) so if that's the case then shouldn't we also keep our noses out of other things that don't concern us like what goes on in other people's families?
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 16:43:08.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 04:56:26 PM · #1122 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
It is not the womans sole respnsibility to pay for / take care of a baby. It should be 50/50 all the way. Also both parents should spend equal time with the child even though they might not be together. |
In a perfect world......
Stand on a street corner some day and ask 100 women if their husbands do their 50% share.
The fully participating dad is an extraordinarily rare creature.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:02:06 PM · #1123 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Places like planned parenthood should provide birth control to anyone that wants it (male or female) but not allow abortions except under certain circumstances |
I still don't get this mentality that sex is a right. (Which brings us back to the original post.) Sex isn't needed for survival.
If you won't want me and my values in your sex life, don't make me pay for it either. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:06:27 PM · #1124 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
The reality is that only women can get pregnancy and the vast majority of women do not want access to abortion to be so seriously restricted. |
You saw the polling results right? You consider a 55-39 gap or a 50-42 gap to be a "vast majority"? I think your preception of reality is somewhat off. Just for clarity, the Pew poll question asks, "do you think abortion should be...legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in all cases, illegal in most cases".
Paul, thanks a million! I had no idea those tags even existed! |
I always wonder who is being polled when I see statistics. Did the pollsters ask women who would be directly affected by lack of access to abortion in their childbearing years, or mostly married and/or older women who wouldn't directly be affected or whose daughters were safely married, or who were members of a religious group that condemned abortion? Maybe those polled were not a cross section of women of childbearing age. I think the statistics might be very different depending on who was polled and where the poll was taken. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:06:37 PM · #1125 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
It is not the womans sole respnsibility to pay for / take care of a baby. It should be 50/50 all the way. Also both parents should spend equal time with the child even though they might not be together. |
In a perfect world......
Stand on a street corner some day and ask 100 women if their husbands do their 50% share.
The fully participating dad is an extraordinarily rare creature. |
My granddaughter is 30 months old. My daughter has received a grand total of 6 months worth of child support. And yes, it's court ordered. And he doesn't take her for his every other weekend court ordered "visitation" either, his mother does. As far as I'm concerned he was nothing but a sperm donor. I just wish I could have convinced my daughter of that when she first told me she was pregnant. I knew he wouldn't be around long even though he's the one who convinced her that it was what he wanted most in the world was to marry her and have a family with her. His other child is 3 months younger than this one. Oh, and he's not with that child's mother either. |
|
