Abortion

@wallstreetcappers

At exactly what point does the child become a 'participant' and have 'rights'?

The Left never talks about the unborn child and they never talk about the sun when they jam global warming down our throats!

@sundance

 The "left" is about the rights of the woman sundance...put aside your personal ultra conservative religious views and consider that every woman in the USA deserves rights to decide what happens to her body, not a Christian male politician who has no understanding of being pregnant and not having the ability to make choices for herself.

You can be as conservative as you want INSIDE YOUR HOME, and through your sexual choices but when the sexual choices of a man can force the issue of pregnancy then the man has NO right to deny rights to a female over her body. You are a male you are not the one who can decide how a woman decides what she feels is important to her body no more than the female forcing you to be castrated because she feels that your sexual organ should be controlled by a woman who does not have such an organ the way a man does.

If you want to express your pro-life agenda then do it by abstaining, getting snipped and not by dictating what a woman can and cannot do.

@Raiders22

Since the "participant" decided to proceed with initiating the pregnancy by their choice, they have no say about what the woman does..this is freedom women have as being the bearer and carrier of the pregnancy and they alone are doing this miracle not the man. 

Unfortunately even if a man and woman are in a relationship and the man thinks the woman is wanting to be a mother and they "agree" that they want to get pregnant, the woman STILL has the final and only say regarding proceeding with the pregnancy. If a woman changes her mind then there is nothing a man should be able to do to change that in our free country and the rights to terminate a pregnancy are completely and only allowed to be decided by the female outside a court deciding a mental deficiency to carry. At a minimum there needs to be a standard set from a federal level that gives a woman the safe and legal right to decide what she feels is best for her body and being pregnant up to a certain determined level that cannot be decided by conservative legislatures, a right where any woman in an part of the country can know they are legally protected to decide what happens and in my VERY humble opinion the federal decision should be made by WOMEN only, a selected group of equally represented women of all demographics that decide what the best course of action is for women in this manner, not a bunch of Ivy league lawyer females, a group of average demographic comprehensive women who will best serve a nationwide standard of choice and liberty for women.

@wallstreetcappers

 Since the "participant" decided to proceed with initiating the pregnancy by their choice, they have no say about what the woman does

No sir.  I am asking what if they did not?  Then if the woman is 'reckless' -- why does a man have to get involved then?

This is almost a Schrodenger's Feminist argument.  Why does she get to have it both ways?

@Raiders22

 There is no both ways, the female is the carrier not the male so there is no both ways there is no this way or that way, the woman is the carrier the woman has all of the say and decision rights, never does the male have a right in this manner. The female cannot be reckless because without the male participation there is no reckless behavior. The control a man has is in NOT engaging in sexual transfer of DNA to the female. Outside that the male has absolutely no say in the decision a female makes for their body.

@wallstreetcappers

 At a minimum there needs to be a standard set from a federal level that gives a woman the safe and legal right to decide what she feels is best for her body

My question is still the same.  You always are returning to this.

Start at the beginning and tell me how you reached this conclusion.  Or start at the end and work it backwards.

Most people are simply relying on emotions or a pushed narrative and never really sit down and reason out their stance on this.

Just saying the same thing over and over does not answer the questions of how you determine this and conclude it is right; it also ignores other questions that are brought up that would use this same logic.

There is a huge False Bifurcation or at least dichotomy here when you take this path.

If it is just an emotional conclusion you have -- then that is fine.

I am just curious if you have rational reasoning behind it that stands up to any scrutiny?

@sundance

These are examples of emotional conclusions.

They usually will go straight to Religion to try to defend this position.

However, there are many, many secular --in fact, outright Atheists -- that have come to the exact opposite conclusion using the same information.

That is where you have to question your own presuppositions -- because we all tend to use them.

@Raiders22

 Ive answered your quandry multiple times. You like to deflect to the states versus the federal and my position has always been that especially in this regard the states continue to screw it up and that is why the federal government had to step in initially and should now. A woman should have basic rights to her body ANYWHERE in the USA not in California or Washington or New York and not in the deep south or Texas or wacko Arizona.

Why is my position considered emotional because I feel certain things should be kept under the roof of the person ahd not in society? Is it emotional to you that as a man I think that women have 100% decision and control over their bodies? What is emotional from my position and what exactly can you say as my position cannot hold up to scrutiny? Is it just that you disagree and have a partisan conservative position like sundance so anything outside your scope is considered emotional and not valid?

@wallstreetcappers

 No sir.  You have just broadly posited it.  You have not answered any of the counters or intricacies that go into it.

It is not a deflection to ask how did you determine your position.

You say when a woman should have basic right over their bodies.  Then when I ask you why their rights trump the kids -- you cannot answer.

You say men cannot tel women what to do with their bodies.  Then I ask you why women can tell men what to do with theirs -- you cannot answer.

I ask you at what point the child has rights -- you cannot answer.

So, yes -- it is simply emotional.  

When I point out that you only wanted it kept at the Federal level because you agreed with that stance and what would you say if it was the opposite.  What if the Federal banned it BUT some states wanted to allow it.  Would you still support not allowing the states to do it their way.  You cannot answer that either.

So, you have to understand why I say you have not really thought through your presuppositions and are just stating something emotional -- IF you cannot clarify your reasoning scientifically, ethically, philosophically, religiously, or morally.

@wallstreetcappers

 Is it just that you disagree and have a partisan conservative position like sundance so anything outside your scope is considered emotional and not valid?

No, as I have pointed out numerous times -- it is not necessarily a political, religious stance when many from polar views have come to the same conclusion based on the evidence.

Now if you simply want to deny all of those issues after consideration -- then it is always self-interest over all else.

That is fine as well.  Many folks are selfish in life and would get away with a lot more if they could just because it is what they want for themselves.

@wallstreetcappers

 For example, take the standard counter by some of the Feminist's movement.  

How would you reply to them on their view:

Some feminists oppose all forms of violence, including abortion, because they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, non-violence and non-discrimination.

So, it is not just the Far Right that have these questions and has pause on this issue(s).

@Raiders22

 #135- Of course I answered every single thing you say I didnt...since I did not give answers you agree with then I did not answer them is that your logic?

Child- I have not addressed the issue about when life is considered in a pregnancy, we have not discussed it as this is about basic rights regarding abortion anywhere in the US not the technicalities of what the framework is, but nice try deflecting again.

Men- I addressed it multiple times, MEN have rights to not have DNA transfer and force the issue of pregnancy, THAT is their right, MEN have control over not starting the process by either getting snipped, not having sex with the possibility of transfer to whatever that might mean. MEN are not the carriers of the pregnancy so they cannot control the choice of the carrier, their choice is to not start the process.

The reason the federal government stepped in was due to the abuses of the states and the lack of rights given to women universally at a minimum. I think the punt approach of the GOP/TNC is to put lipstick on a pig and try to not offend. Any woman in any state deserves consistent rights to control her body, not certain rights in certain states and none or extremely oppressive limits in others, and as men we should support the basic rights of women to decide for themselves.

@Raiders22

 #136- So evidence is words you say then because you say it and others say it thus it is evidence. And when I say that women deserve basic rights and others share that view but it is not YOUR view then it is not evidence.

LOL nice one 

@wallstreetcappers 

Child- I have not addressed the issue about when life is considered in a pregnancy, we have not discussed it as this is about basic rights regarding abortion anywhere in the US not the technicalities of what the framework is, but nice try deflecting again.

Not a deflection.  This is obviously the question has to be answered before you take the stance.  We have not discussed it because you keep swerving it.

@wallstreetcappers

 Men- I addressed it multiple times, MEN have rights to not have DNA transfer and force the issue of pregnancy, THAT is their right, MEN have control over not starting the process by either getting snipped, not having sex with the possibility of transfer to whatever that might mean. MEN are not the carriers of the pregnancy so they cannot control the choice of the carrier, their choice is to not start the process.

But are they absolved if they both agreed not to have a kid and the woman was 'reckless' or said she would get an abortion and then changes her mind.  Or simply boobytraps the guy by skipping the pill?

@wallstreetcappers

 Men- I addressed it multiple times, MEN have rights to not have DNA transfer and force the issue of pregnancy, THAT is their right, MEN have control over not starting the process by either getting snipped, not having sex with the possibility of transfer to whatever that might mean. MEN are not the carriers of the pregnancy so they cannot control the choice of the carrier, their choice is to not start the process.

But, again the secondary question has not been addressed.  Why can women tell men what to do with their bodies and not vice-versa?

Why can women not tell women what to do with their bodies?

@wallstreetcappers

 The reason the federal government stepped in was due to the abuses of the states and the lack of rights given to women universally at a minimum.

It does not matter.  The question is does the logic follow if it were the other way around and the Federal Government was the one 'abusing' it.

Does it apply then as well or no?

@wallstreetcappers

 I think the punt approach of the GOP/TNC is to put lipstick on a pig and try to not offend. Any woman in any state deserves consistent rights to control her body, not certain rights in certain states and none or extremely oppressive limits in others, and as men we should support the basic rights of women to decide for themselves.

I do not care about the GOP.  I have asked you to justify it apolitically as well.  You still have not done that.

@wallstreetcappers

So evidence is words you say then because you say it and others say it thus it is evidence. And when I say that women deserve basic rights and others share that view but it is not YOUR view then it is not evidence.

LOL nice one 

What?  That does not make sense.  You guys on the Left are always saying follow the science -- I am asking did you do this to come to your conclusion?

Did you ignore all of the other questions surrounding this -- science, ethics, morals, philosophy, religion, history, etc.?

If not -- that is fine.  But again it goes back to an emotional reaction of following what you feel on the surface.

A lot of people do that.  IF you have not looked deep into the issue that is fine.

BUT when other people that have disagreed using the same things that are available to you, it is hard to say you are right and they are wrong based on an emotional opinion.

@Raiders22

 #141- I already answered this, the woman has control over the decision 100% from the moment that the MAN has given up his claim by having sex and transferring DNA through sexual activity. A woman is not acting reckless if she changes her mind, even if she said otherwise prior. A woman has the right to make a decision without consent or agreement from the MAN, a woman can change her mind even if the MAN does not agree, a woman can have an abortion even if the MAN does not agree, if the MAN does not want the abortion, if the MAN was told otherwise. None of choice is reckless Raiders...it is the right of the carrier to make a decision period. Reckless is the MAN taking choice by proceeding with his part in the activity and then not accepting the decision of the WOMAN at any point in the process. The MAN has no claim to the decision regarding the body of a WOMAN.

@wallstreetcappers

 I already answered this, the woman has control over the decision 100% from the moment that the MAN has given up his claim by having sex and transferring DNA through sexual activity.

Why?  If the plan all along was to not have a child and they both agreed.

A woman is not acting reckless if she changes her mind, even if she said otherwise prior. A woman has the right to make a decision without consent or agreement from the MAN, a woman can change her mind even if the MAN does not agree, a woman can have an abortion even if the MAN does not agree, if the MAN does not want the abortion, if the MAN was told otherwise.

Why is the man then held responsible is she was reckless or deceptive?  No responsibility for her lying or deceiving the man.

None of choice is reckless Raiders...it is the right of the carrier to make a decision period. Reckless is the MAN taking choice by proceeding with his part in the activity and then not accepting the decision of the WOMAN at any point in the process. The MAN has no claim to the decision regarding the body of a WOMAN.

Yes, you keep saying it over and over.  Why do you 'feel' this way?  Are you simply basing it on who is 'carrying' the child even if both agreed to not have a child?

@wallstreetcappers

 For example, how do you stand on the proposal for the Man to have to pay for half of the doctor bills leading up to birth?

What if the woman then just takes the money and then at 9 months decides to get an abortion?

Should the 'child' support start then -- even though you are okay with the woman killing the child at any time?

@Raiders22

 Follow the science? The womans choice over her body is not the science it is the right as a woman to make a decision about her body and the pregnancy she is the 100% carrier of. Where did you come up with science and the other stuff you are trying to deflect with? Roe/Wade gave federal guidelines to protect basic rights of the female, that is the standard set prior to the conservative reversal and deflection back to the states who messed it up in the first place. We now see that states are messing it up and cannot respect basic rights of a woman to be a standard anywhere in this country. A woman deserves basic minimum rights from the east to the west, any female resident in this country deserve understood standards that are consistent everywhere and anywhere. We do not have that now, we did not have it before and that is why the supreme court made the prior decision...states were not giving reasonable rights to women and they had to step in. Now we have stepped backwards and removed some minimum rights that were the standard.

My view is based on rights of any person living in this country, it really is not a political issue or a religious issue it is a rights issue without any purpose of intervention from religious or political agendas. There were standards, there need to be standards that are consistent and universal at a minimum. As a MAN if you do not agree with abortion then take control over your actions and stop the process using the control and rights as a MAN that you have, not dictate the rights of a woman on her body and force your views on millions of others who do not share the views you have, society in large has a different view and the punting that the court did was harmful and offensive to all women in the USA, even those who might be against abortion...they took away basic rights and standards that all women deserve even if you are against abortion personally.

@wallstreetcappers

This is a better starting point, maybe.  Because this is where it may need to be decided why you 'feel' this way.

Where do you stand at the beginning of it all?  I am still interested in how you got to this point.