The Moral Case For Abortion and Birth Control: - Page 3

BobTheCoward · 3rd February 2013, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

But here's the point, why do you care? What is it about fornication that causes you to want people to practice abstinence? Isn't the point to effectively reduce STD's and unwanted abortions? If so we know what works.

Because I find society an interesting thing to think about. Its more interesting than policy sometimes and I wanted to toss it out and see if it was worth talking about.

RandFan · 3rd February 2013, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

My political ideology is so far in one direction that the idea of the government advocating abstinence only education is equally offensive as advocating birth control.

I bring up the economics example because its my background and is a quick hypothesis like the evolutionary one. Something that I thought would be interesting to explore.

What do you mean by "advocating birth control"? I think that is a straw man. I'm advocating comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence and informs about birth control and abortion. I'm for society getting out of the way of individuals making choices for themselves. I'm for allowing people the liberty to make informed choices.

That's it.

RandFan · 3rd February 2013, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Because I find society an interesting thing to think about. Its more interesting than policy sometimes and I wanted to toss it out and see if it was worth talking about.

Fair enough. Thanks.

RandFan · 3rd February 2013, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

What do you mean by "advocating birth control"? I think that is a straw man. I'm advocating comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence or monogamy and informs about birth control and abortion. I'm for society getting out of the way of individuals making choices for themselves. I'm for allowing people the liberty to make informed choices.

That's it.

Forgot to include monogamy. Sorry.

Skeptic Ginger · 3rd February 2013, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

My political ideology is so far in one direction that the idea of the government advocating abstinence only education is equally offensive as advocating birth control.

That is my point. Your ideology (extreme Libertarianism perhaps?) suggests you aren't taking an evidence based approach here, you are taking an ideological one. The government (which BTW is the people at least some of the time) shouldn't interfere in anything even if it improves the well being of the majority. Would you take that ideology so far as to say we should let cripples beg in the street, do nothing for the mentally ill except lock them up when they break the law, let people die on the ED steps if they can't pay and no one nearby is feeling particularly charitable that day?

I'm just asking where you draw the line? And if you draw it anywhere, why there?

Are you better off if society educates all children? Are you worse off if society looks at a problem like the morality of abortion, and advocates at least some government intervention? Does it bother you abortion doctors have been shot in public places, abortion clinics blown up? Is the government's only role to arrest the criminals? Wouldn't some action to deal with the social strife ahead of time be preferable?

It's a fantasy world view to believe no community (aka public, aka the government) interventions are necessary and only individual interventions are needed. The reason the government tells you what you can or can't build on your private property is because sometimes what you build affects other individuals. A society with no community functions would have tremendous negative consequences. Individuals still have to live within the group.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I bring up the economics example because its my background and is a quick hypothesis like the evolutionary one. Something that I thought would be interesting to explore.

Except you assume it hasn't been explored rather than recognizing it has. It's rather unsupportable to conclude that abortion leads to unwanted pregnancy by removing the negative consequences. And it's an unsupportable conclusion on so many levels, starting with thinking an abortion is not a negative consequence.

Skeptic Ginger · 3rd February 2013, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

What do you mean by "advocating birth control"? I think that is a straw man. I'm advocating comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence and informs about birth control and abortion. I'm for society getting out of the way of individuals making choices for themselves. I'm for allowing people the liberty to make informed choices.

That's it.

You know we agree here. But it leads me to a 'just curious' devil's advocate question. Suppose legal abortion is completely up to the woman and anti-abortionists bomb clinics and shoot doctors?

Obviously that can't be tolerated, but what do you do about the individuals who see legal abortions as advocating for one side?

RandFan · 3rd February 2013, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You know we agree here. But it leads me to a 'just curious' devil's advocate question. Suppose legal abortion is completely up to the woman and anti-abortionists bomb clinics and shoot doctors?

Obviously that can't be tolerated, but what do you do about the individuals who see legal abortions as advocating for one side?

I'm not sure what one could do. The point is to protect rights not advocate behavior. When SCOTUS ruled in favor of Larry Flynt they were not advocating for Flynt's opinion they were affirming his rights. I hope that helps. I'm not sure.

marplots · 3rd February 2013, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

NO! Damn marplots.

Please don't do that. I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I'm arguing the opposite. Society should get out of the way and let the woman decide. So, would you please respond to my post with that thesis in mind?

Thesis: proscriptions against birth control and abortion are immoral.

I think the locus of control should be the woman who is pregnant. The only thing society should do is get out of the way.

Apologies. You have been very clear and I've still managed to drift off on a tangent.

RandFan · 3rd February 2013, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Apologies. You have been very clear and I've still managed to drift off on a tangent.

I should say that my response to you was a bit misleading. I do think society should educate people so they can make informed choices. I think society should not advocate promiscuity or even birth control it should simply educate. I think society should tell people about the dangers associated with sex. Unwanted pregnancies and disease.

So I apologize for saying society should do nothing other than get out of the way. It should also provide the truth as well as we know it.

KatieG · 5th February 2013, 10:38 AM

I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses.

Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else.

Skeptic Ginger · 5th February 2013, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by KatieG

I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses.

Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else.

But morality includes the belief that one's morals do or do not apply to others.

RandFan · 5th February 2013, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by KatieG

I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses.

Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else.

So, you reject social contract theory? Do you think that morality should be left up to only those involved? Are you an anarchist or something akin to that?

I think the choice should be between a woman and her doctor but I reject your proposition. Could you perhaps make an argument to support your position or do you believe it is axiomatic and merely stating the axiom is all that is needed? If so I reject your assertion. It's not axiomatic because we do live in a society. A person without children is entitled to care about the welfare and well being of children.

KatieG · 5th February 2013, 11:10 AM

RandFan, I am way too emotionally wired to have a reasonable discussion with anyone on the subject of abortion. I apologize for stepping in here when I knew better and I will now withdraw.

RandFan · 5th February 2013, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by KatieG

RandFan, I am way too emotionally wired to have a reasonable discussion with anyone on the subject of abortion. I apologize for stepping in here when I knew better and I will now withdraw.

Understood. Please understand that I very much respect your position regardless.

KatieG · 5th February 2013, 11:31 AM

Thanks. I extend the same courtesy to you.

Cinnamon Life · 5th February 2013, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by KatieG

I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses.

Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else.

So if a man chooses to involve himself he should be allowed to stop the abortion? The man has no input.

I am continually amazed by women who think they are entitled to ANY rights when they have never been obligated to defend them. Be forced to sign up for selective service and be drafted when **** gets rough, or be quiet.

I'm from the North and what happens in the South doesn't really affect or involve me, should I have no input on the segregation that was there? Pathetic logic. I'll make whatever business I want mine.

NWO Sentryman · 5th February 2013, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by KatieG

I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses.

Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else.

Isn't this reminiscent to a lot of "**** you, I've got mine" logic?

marplots · 5th February 2013, 03:37 PM

Why does the doctor get special status when it come to a moral choice?

I should be between the woman and her fetus.

RandFan · 5th February 2013, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Why does the doctor get special status when it come to a moral choice?

I should be between the woman and her fetus.

I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong.

marplots · 5th February 2013, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong.

That seems fine, I just wouldn't look to a physician to comment on the morality of, say, me getting a nose job (since I can't actually have an abortion).

"Granted, your nose is huge and all, but that's the way God made you and it's immoral to change your face in light of God's plan and placement of that tremendous honker."

Really. It ought to be up to me what I do with my body.

RandFan · 5th February 2013, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

That seems fine, I just wouldn't look to a physician to comment on the morality of, say, me getting a nose job (since I can't actually have an abortion).

"Granted, your nose is huge and all, but that's the way God made you and it's immoral to change your face in light of God's plan and placement of that tremendous honker."

Really. It ought to be up to me what I do with my body.

When did I say otherwise?

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong.

What about women having the final choice means is it isn't up to you?

marplots · 5th February 2013, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

When did I say otherwise?

What about women having the final choice means is it isn't up to you?

Let's cut to the chase then. What moral role does the physician play that makes the woman plus her doctor a different relationship than, say, a woman and her spiritual adviser?

RandFan · 5th February 2013, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Let's cut to the chase then. What moral role does the physician play that makes the woman plus her doctor a different relationship than, say, a woman and her spiritual adviser?

I'll go with medical school and residency in modern medicine. I'm guessing the doctor has the means to give empirically demonstrated useful advice to the woman and the spiritual adviser can't do much of anything.

Skeptic Ginger · 5th February 2013, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong.

And, the doc has to do the procedure. He/she is involved in saying if he/she will do the procedure.

RandFan · 5th February 2013, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No, the doc has to do the procedure. He/she is involved in saying if he/she will do the procedure.

I'll go with that also. But I do think that the relationship between doctor and patient to be sacrosanct. When it comes to one's health the doctor will be the most important person for advice. So I stand by that. JMO.

StankApe · 5th February 2013, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by KatieG

I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses.

Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else.

then men are no longer required to provide child support. if it's purely a woman's choice, then women bear ALL the financial responsibility.

Skeptic Ginger · 5th February 2013, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'll go with that also. But I do think that the relationship between doctor and patient to be sacrosanct. When it comes to one's health the doctor will be the most important person for advice. So I stand by that. JMO.

You'll notice I edited "No" to "And".

RandFan · 5th February 2013, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You'll notice I edited "No" to "And".

Cool.

Skeptic Ginger · 5th February 2013, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

then men are no longer required to provide child support. if it's purely a woman's choice, then women bear ALL the financial responsibility.

And so starts the never ending thread............

StankApe · 5th February 2013, 06:25 PM

I'm just saying (and not interested enough to turn this into a never ending thread btw)

but I don't think women can have it both ways. either you are the sole person responsible for the child or you aren't. If a woman gets pregnant due to a "mistake" and wants to keep it against the father's wishes, you'd be railing that he MUST pay his share right? If the woman wanted to have an abortion yet the father wanted to keep it and take care of it independent of the woman, you would say 'tough, it's her body"

I don't think that's proper at all. it says "equal protection under the law" not "except when it comes to babies"

Skeptic Ginger · 5th February 2013, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

I'm just saying (and not interested enough to turn this into a never ending thread btw)

but I don't think women can have it both ways. either you are the sole person responsible for the child or you aren't. If a woman gets pregnant due to a "mistake" and wants to keep it against the father's wishes, you'd be railing that he MUST pay his share right? If the woman wanted to have an abortion yet the father wanted to keep it and take care of it independent of the woman, you would say 'tough, it's her body"

I don't think that's proper at all. it says "equal protection under the law" not "except when it comes to babies"

Sigh.....

This is going to be my only comment, I refuse to hijack Rand's thread: The child support is owed the child, not the mother. The pregnancy is the mother's.

StankApe · 5th February 2013, 06:34 PM

eff the child

and I'm done with this too!

Caper · 6th February 2013, 01:14 AM

How about giving a $5000 check to anyone willing to be rendered infertile from ages 21-25? The people taking you up on the offer are just the type of people you don't want reproducing.

3rd February 2013, 12:17 PM	#81
BobTheCoward Muse Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 699	Originally Posted by RandFan But here's the point, why do you care? What is it about fornication that causes you to want people to practice abstinence? Isn't the point to effectively reduce STD's and unwanted abortions? If so we know what works. Because I find society an interesting thing to think about. Its more interesting than policy sometimes and I wanted to toss it out and see if it was worth talking about.
BobTheCoward Muse Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 699

3rd February 2013, 12:18 PM	#82
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward My political ideology is so far in one direction that the idea of the government advocating abstinence only education is equally offensive as advocating birth control. I bring up the economics example because its my background and is a quick hypothesis like the evolutionary one. Something that I thought would be interesting to explore. What do you mean by "advocating birth control"? I think that is a straw man. I'm advocating comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence and informs about birth control and abortion. I'm for society getting out of the way of individuals making choices for themselves. I'm for allowing people the liberty to make informed choices. That's it.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd February 2013, 12:20 PM	#83
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Because I find society an interesting thing to think about. Its more interesting than policy sometimes and I wanted to toss it out and see if it was worth talking about. Fair enough. Thanks.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd February 2013, 12:23 PM	#84
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by RandFan What do you mean by "advocating birth control"? I think that is a straw man. I'm advocating comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence or monogamy and informs about birth control and abortion. I'm for society getting out of the way of individuals making choices for themselves. I'm for allowing people the liberty to make informed choices. That's it. Forgot to include monogamy. Sorry.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd February 2013, 01:19 PM	#85
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,576	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward My political ideology is so far in one direction that the idea of the government advocating abstinence only education is equally offensive as advocating birth control. That is my point. Your ideology (extreme Libertarianism perhaps?) suggests you aren't taking an evidence based approach here, you are taking an ideological one. The government (which BTW is the people at least some of the time) shouldn't interfere in anything even if it improves the well being of the majority. Would you take that ideology so far as to say we should let cripples beg in the street, do nothing for the mentally ill except lock them up when they break the law, let people die on the ED steps if they can't pay and no one nearby is feeling particularly charitable that day? I'm just asking where you draw the line? And if you draw it anywhere, why there? Are you better off if society educates all children? Are you worse off if society looks at a problem like the morality of abortion, and advocates at least some government intervention? Does it bother you abortion doctors have been shot in public places, abortion clinics blown up? Is the government's only role to arrest the criminals? Wouldn't some action to deal with the social strife ahead of time be preferable? It's a fantasy world view to believe no community (aka public, aka the government) interventions are necessary and only individual interventions are needed. The reason the government tells you what you can or can't build on your private property is because sometimes what you build affects other individuals. A society with no community functions would have tremendous negative consequences. Individuals still have to live within the group. Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I bring up the economics example because its my background and is a quick hypothesis like the evolutionary one. Something that I thought would be interesting to explore. Except you assume it hasn't been explored rather than recognizing it has. It's rather unsupportable to conclude that abortion leads to unwanted pregnancy by removing the negative consequences. And it's an unsupportable conclusion on so many levels, starting with thinking an abortion is not a negative consequence.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd February 2013 at 01:23 PM.*

3rd February 2013, 01:28 PM	#86
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,576	Originally Posted by RandFan What do you mean by "advocating birth control"? I think that is a straw man. I'm advocating comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence and informs about birth control and abortion. I'm for society getting out of the way of individuals making choices for themselves. I'm for allowing people the liberty to make informed choices. That's it. You know we agree here. But it leads me to a 'just curious' devil's advocate question. Suppose legal abortion is completely up to the woman and anti-abortionists bomb clinics and shoot doctors? Obviously that can't be tolerated, but what do you do about the individuals who see legal abortions as advocating for one side?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

3rd February 2013, 01:37 PM	#87
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You know we agree here. But it leads me to a 'just curious' devil's advocate question. Suppose legal abortion is completely up to the woman and anti-abortionists bomb clinics and shoot doctors? Obviously that can't be tolerated, but what do you do about the individuals who see legal abortions as advocating for one side? I'm not sure what one could do. The point is to protect rights not advocate behavior. When SCOTUS ruled in favor of Larry Flynt they were not advocating for Flynt's opinion they were affirming his rights. I hope that helps. I'm not sure.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd February 2013, 01:45 PM	#88
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by RandFan NO! Damn marplots. Please don't do that. I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I'm arguing the opposite. Society should get out of the way and let the woman decide. So, would you please respond to my post with that thesis in mind? Thesis: proscriptions against birth control and abortion are immoral. I think the locus of control should be the woman who is pregnant. The only thing society should do is get out of the way. Apologies. You have been very clear and I've still managed to drift off on a tangent.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398

3rd February 2013, 01:52 PM	#89
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by marplots Apologies. You have been very clear and I've still managed to drift off on a tangent. I should say that my response to you was a bit misleading. I do think society should educate people so they can make informed choices. I think society should not advocate promiscuity or even birth control it should simply educate. I think society should tell people about the dangers associated with sex. Unwanted pregnancies and disease. So I apologize for saying society should do nothing other than get out of the way. It should also provide the truth as well as we know it.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th February 2013, 10:38 AM	#90
KatieG Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail Posts: 1,278	I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses. Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else.
	__________________ Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. -Confucius A horse is like a best friend. They`re always there to nuzzle you and make your life a better place. Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

5th February 2013, 10:45 AM	#91
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,576	Originally Posted by KatieG I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses. Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else. But morality includes the belief that one's morals do or do not apply to others.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

5th February 2013, 10:52 AM	#92
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by KatieG I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses. Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else. So, you reject social contract theory? Do you think that morality should be left up to only those involved? Are you an anarchist or something akin to that? I think the choice should be between a woman and her doctor but I reject your proposition. Could you perhaps make an argument to support your position or do you believe it is axiomatic and merely stating the axiom is all that is needed? If so I reject your assertion. It's not axiomatic because we do live in a society. A person without children is entitled to care about the welfare and well being of children.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th February 2013, 11:10 AM	#93
KatieG Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail Posts: 1,278	RandFan, I am way too emotionally wired to have a reasonable discussion with anyone on the subject of abortion. I apologize for stepping in here when I knew better and I will now withdraw.
	__________________ Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. -Confucius A horse is like a best friend. They`re always there to nuzzle you and make your life a better place. Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

5th February 2013, 11:14 AM	#94
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by KatieG RandFan, I am way too emotionally wired to have a reasonable discussion with anyone on the subject of abortion. I apologize for stepping in here when I knew better and I will now withdraw. Understood. Please understand that I very much respect your position regardless.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th February 2013, 11:31 AM	#95
KatieG Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail Posts: 1,278	Thanks. I extend the same courtesy to you.
	__________________ Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. -Confucius A horse is like a best friend. They`re always there to nuzzle you and make your life a better place. Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

5th February 2013, 12:31 PM	#96
Cinnamon Life Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Syracuse NY Posts: 277	Originally Posted by KatieG I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses. Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else. So if a man chooses to involve himself he should be allowed to stop the abortion? The man has no input. I am continually amazed by women who think they are entitled to ANY rights when they have never been obligated to defend them. Be forced to sign up for selective service and be drafted when **** gets rough, or be quiet. I'm from the North and what happens in the South doesn't really affect or involve me, should I have no input on the segregation that was there? Pathetic logic. I'll make whatever business I want mine.

5th February 2013, 01:40 PM	#97
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,774	Originally Posted by KatieG I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses. Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else. Isn't this reminiscent to a lot of "**** you, I've got mine" logic?
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

5th February 2013, 03:37 PM	#98
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398	Why does the doctor get special status when it come to a moral choice? I should be between the woman and her fetus.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398

5th February 2013, 03:40 PM	#99
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by marplots Why does the doctor get special status when it come to a moral choice? I should be between the woman and her fetus. I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th February 2013, 03:59 PM	#100
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by RandFan I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong. That seems fine, I just wouldn't look to a physician to comment on the morality of, say, me getting a nose job (since I can't actually have an abortion). "Granted, your nose is huge and all, but that's the way God made you and it's immoral to change your face in light of God's plan and placement of that tremendous honker." Really. It ought to be up to me what I do with my body.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398

5th February 2013, 05:35 PM	#101
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by marplots That seems fine, I just wouldn't look to a physician to comment on the morality of, say, me getting a nose job (since I can't actually have an abortion). "Granted, your nose is huge and all, but that's the way God made you and it's immoral to change your face in light of God's plan and placement of that tremendous honker." Really. It ought to be up to me what I do with my body. When did I say otherwise? Originally Posted by RandFan I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong. What about women having the final choice means is it isn't up to you?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 5th February 2013 at 05:36 PM.

5th February 2013, 05:43 PM	#102
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by RandFan When did I say otherwise? What about women having the final choice means is it isn't up to you? Let's cut to the chase then. What moral role does the physician play that makes the woman plus her doctor a different relationship than, say, a woman and her spiritual adviser?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,398

5th February 2013, 05:50 PM	#103
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by marplots Let's cut to the chase then. What moral role does the physician play that makes the woman plus her doctor a different relationship than, say, a woman and her spiritual adviser? I'll go with medical school and residency in modern medicine. I'm guessing the doctor has the means to give empirically demonstrated useful advice to the woman and the spiritual adviser can't do much of anything.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th February 2013, 06:07 PM	#104
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,576	Originally Posted by RandFan I think the idea is that people rely on the opinions of their physicians and that is the only authority that women should rely on. Not that the woman doesn't have the final choice. Only that this is a health issue and it's reasonable to rely on the advice of one's physician. That's just my impression. I could be completely wrong. And, the doc has to do the procedure. He/she is involved in saying if he/she will do the procedure.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

5th February 2013, 06:09 PM	#105
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger No, the doc has to do the procedure. He/she is involved in saying if he/she will do the procedure. I'll go with that also. But I do think that the relationship between doctor and patient to be sacrosanct. When it comes to one's health the doctor will be the most important person for advice. So I stand by that. JMO.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th February 2013, 06:10 PM	#106
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by KatieG I am continually amazed to see discussions of abortion being conducted by men or those not involved. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and/or the man if he chooses. Your moral argument is invalid. Your morals are not mine and are not to be imposed on me or anyone else. then men are no longer required to provide child support. if it's purely a woman's choice, then women bear ALL the financial responsibility.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

5th February 2013, 06:18 PM	#107
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,576	Originally Posted by RandFan I'll go with that also. But I do think that the relationship between doctor and patient to be sacrosanct. When it comes to one's health the doctor will be the most important person for advice. So I stand by that. JMO. You'll notice I edited "No" to "And".
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

5th February 2013, 06:19 PM	#108
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,260	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You'll notice I edited "No" to "And". Cool.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th February 2013, 06:19 PM	#109
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,576	Originally Posted by StankApe then men are no longer required to provide child support. if it's purely a woman's choice, then women bear ALL the financial responsibility. And so starts the never ending thread............
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

5th February 2013, 06:25 PM	#110
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I'm just saying (and not interested enough to turn this into a never ending thread btw) but I don't think women can have it both ways. either you are the sole person responsible for the child or you aren't. If a woman gets pregnant due to a "mistake" and wants to keep it against the father's wishes, you'd be railing that he MUST pay his share right? If the woman wanted to have an abortion yet the father wanted to keep it and take care of it independent of the woman, you would say 'tough, it's her body" I don't think that's proper at all. it says "equal protection under the law" not "except when it comes to babies"
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

5th February 2013, 06:33 PM	#111
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,576	Originally Posted by StankApe I'm just saying (and not interested enough to turn this into a never ending thread btw) but I don't think women can have it both ways. either you are the sole person responsible for the child or you aren't. If a woman gets pregnant due to a "mistake" and wants to keep it against the father's wishes, you'd be railing that he MUST pay his share right? If the woman wanted to have an abortion yet the father wanted to keep it and take care of it independent of the woman, you would say 'tough, it's her body" I don't think that's proper at all. it says "equal protection under the law" not "except when it comes to babies" Sigh..... This is going to be my only comment, I refuse to hijack Rand's thread: The child support is owed the child, not the mother. The pregnancy is the mother's.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

5th February 2013, 06:34 PM	#112
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	eff the child and I'm done with this too!
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

6th February 2013, 01:14 AM	#113
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	How about giving a $5000 check to anyone willing to be rendered infertile from ages 21-25? The people taking you up on the offer are just the type of people you don't want reproducing.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946