War on Women?

What's going on in the world today?

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: War on Women?

Postby RAnthony » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:53 pm

It's no longer "unconstitutional" if you change the Constitution. That is the goal of these groups.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5459
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: War on Women?

Postby Nergol » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:34 pm

Fallback to the Constitution? For people who look at this:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And believe it plainly says that there's an inalienable right to have an abortion? Don't make me laugh.

The anti-abortionist response to this decision has been to attempt to move the goalpost of viability back to conception, so as to insure that women remain slaves to their ability to produce children.


No, it's to say that if a human being is not you (and since an unborn child does not have the same DNA structure as the mother, it is provably not her), then you don't have the right to kill them. Certainly not barring a conviction on a capital crime (hard to get against a fetus), a state of war (also difficult to get against a fetus), or self-defense (which could be argued in cases of threat to the life of the mother).
Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!
User avatar
Nergol
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6282
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:33 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby RAnthony » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:42 pm

Seriously, do we have to do that argument again? Prove it's a life, separate and independent. Can't be done before third trimester. You cannot kill what is not alive.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5459
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: War on Women?

Postby Nergol » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:52 pm

RAnthony wrote:You cannot kill what is not alive.


Wait - what? Are you arguing that a fetus is made of inorganic matter? You do understand that there's living tissue that ceases biological processes when an abortion happens, right?

Science FAIL.

Seriously, do we have to do that argument again? Prove it's a life, separate and independent.


If it doesn't have your DNA structure, it's not you. And if it's not you, you don't have the right to kill it.
Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!
User avatar
Nergol
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6282
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:33 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby de officiis » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:08 pm

RAnthony wrote:It's no longer "unconstitutional" if you change the Constitution. That is the goal of these groups.


So what?

Let them try to change the Constitution if they want, and you or anyone else can oppose them. At the risk of stating the obvious, I feel compelled to point out that we are allowed to petition the Government to affect changes to our laws. And if enough people (ultimately, States) were to get behind such an initiative, and the Constitution were duly amended, then you would then have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of people in the U.S. disagree with your views about what constitutes a person. That's what it means to live in a democracy. Not saying it would ever happen, but we shouldn't fear the process. I find it at least somewhat reassuring that some people out there feel sufficiently motivated to get out of their self-absorbed lives and participate in the political process. We should, at some level, be grateful that we have a political process that gives us the freedom to seek such changes. Not everyone does.
Image
User avatar
de officiis
Satrap
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby boethius » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:37 am

RAnthony wrote:Seriously, do we have to do that argument again? Prove it's a life, separate and independent. Can't be done before third trimester. You cannot kill what is not alive.

So you believe a law banning abortion during the 3rd trimester (aside from "self-defense" or if the fetus is already dead) would be Constitutional?
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby wise_owl » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:00 am

Nergol wrote:
RAnthony wrote:You cannot kill what is not alive.


Wait - what? Are you arguing that a fetus is made of inorganic matter? You do understand that there's living tissue that ceases biological processes when an abortion happens, right?

Science FAIL.

Seriously, do we have to do that argument again? Prove it's a life, separate and independent.


If it doesn't have your DNA structure, it's not you. And if it's not you, you don't have the right to kill it.


I had to pull this out because of how irrational it is. Many forms of Cancer operate because of a small alteration to the DNA of a subject cell, causing it to propagate and grow almost as a seperate entity. Because it's DNA is 'seperate' from 'yours' would you argue that Chemo-therapy is murder? Of course not. Hell the DNA within your body isn't uniform. Even your Gametes are likely to have a multiplicity of differences in itron and extron DNA. Do we argue that each individual Egg and Sperm is a separate person? No, of course not, that would be ludicrous.

On a purely legal level, laws opposing Abortion can only exist in a context of Women's right to privacy being violated. A woman is pregnant, than she is not. Only by invasive medical examination can one determine the actuality of what occured and whether or not to press charges and on whom. There is no other way to enact a law opposed to abortion. It would also require violations of Patient-Doctor confidentiality.

Now if you want to argue there is no right to privacy in the US constitution, you are free to do so, which is an interesitng proposition and makes me glad I live in a place where such a right is enshrined in law.

Though in terms of the present rise on high-order anti-woman politics in the US, the abortion debate is a small, small corner of a much larger attack against women's personhood. The attacks on contraception for example, or the way the whole 'Sexting' thing has played out time and time again represent examples of how women's sexuality is continually defined as their prime characteristic. How the political fear of women and girls engaging in sexual behavoir is used as political tool.
User avatar
wise_owl
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby FragileUnion » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:25 am

User avatar
FragileUnion
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 9:00 am
Location: Portland, Or

Re: War on Women?

Postby boethius » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:59 am

Image

Image
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby Kath » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:02 am

Do the Catholic priests object to Viagra being covered? What about vasectomies?

(edit, wrong word.... totally wrong procedure :oops: )
Last edited by Kath on Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you believe you can't do something, you are absolutely right.
User avatar
Kath
Archon
 
Posts: 12631
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:42 am

Re: War on Women?

Postby drtrech » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:04 am

boethius wrote:Image

If she's getting birth control from the government, there's no need for them to be messing with her uterus.

Logic fail.
Image
User avatar
drtrech
Archon
 
Posts: 27964
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: Mississippi

Re: War on Women?

Postby boethius » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:12 am

It doesn't matter if B/C is good for society or not--what matters is that government shouldn't force the issue one way or another, either by mandates or by bans.
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby drtrech » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:39 am

boethius wrote:It doesn't matter if B/C is good for society or not--what matters is that government shouldn't force the issue one way or another, either by mandates or by bans.

To an extent, I agree with you. Where I disagree, of course, is that I believe the government has justification for mandating availabilityof birth control.
Image
User avatar
drtrech
Archon
 
Posts: 27964
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: Mississippi

Re: War on Women?

Postby boethius » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:44 am

drtrech wrote:Where I disagree, of course, is that I believe the government has justification for mandating availabilityof birth control.


Was birth control "unavailable" before Obamacare's employer mandate?

No one is asking to go back to the pre-Griswold* days; just pre-Obamacare.




*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: War on Women?

Postby wise_owl » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:42 pm

boethius wrote:
drtrech wrote:Where I disagree, of course, is that I believe the government has justification for mandating availabilityof birth control.


Was birth control "unavailable" before Obamacare's employer mandate?

No one is asking to go back to the pre-Griswold* days; just pre-Obamacare.




*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut


That's not entirely accurate. They are asking for an allowance to allow employers to enforce their moral beliefs on their employee's through the legislation of 'Obamacare'. If person A works for some-one who doesn't care and thus is fine with the Insurer paying Birth Control, but person B works for a Catholic who believes it's his moral duty to not pay for Birth Control, person B is suffering in effect from a 'Sin Tax'.

The essential truth is that the vast majority of women in North America use birth control of one form or another. That includes Catholic women. You shouldn't have to pay more money for a piece of preventative medicine just because your Boss holds some bizarre, and most likely hypocritical views on Sexuality.
User avatar
wise_owl
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atanamis, Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 9 guests