Athias

Moral theory does not allow a woman to choose

freedom from govt. restraint does.

Just because I argue that Republicans have no right to make that choice for women does not mean that I think there's a morally coherent justification for choosing abortion. 

 I'm not sure there is but I feel compelled to withhold judgement because that is not a choice I'll ever have to face biologically.  I do believe that decision is only the pregnant woman's to make

and that if that woman chooses life than the father is obligated morally- he is not burdened with gestation so his choices ended at inception.

Our freedom to choose is limited by the harm we might inflict on others and the harm an absent father inflicts on a child outweighs any claim to harm that father might claim.

I'm no student for philosophy but I don't think I buy voluntarism by itself as a morally coherent notion.

Our freedom to choose is limited by the harm we might inflict on others

the same moral theory that allows a woman to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term

it's the moral theory of voluntarism (anti-coercion) and self-ownership

Let’s see about that.

They don’t need to be quantified to know they exist. 

“…by default mitigated…“ is paradoxical. By default the situation has both parties culpable of what occurred in the end. 

They don’t have to be.

The woman wilfully participated in the risk taking.

can you be slightly more specific ?

Feminist want women to have the same freedoms the men do.

Men are free to have sex

men are free to fight parental responsibility or even not engage in it and just basically say take my money.

As a feminist

I believe women have the right to have sex when they want to

The idea that women should not have sex until they're ready to have a child is the most misogynist thing I could ever hear anyone say.

Especially when they don't hold men to the same standard.

The best thing to do when it comes to abortion is mind your own goddamn business.

If a woman finds out she's pregnant she can discuss it with a doctor or someone at a clinic or whatever she chooses to do.

Any man that doesn't like the idea of a woman having an abortion

or doesn't like the idea of having to pay for a child cuz they don't want to be a parent should get a reversible vasectomy.

Cuz after decades of discussing abortion we still don't say anything about the other party which is the man

it's time we start telling men you don't like abortion get a vasectomy if you don't like the idea of being a father get a vasectomy.

People always tell the women not to put out that's the solution like somehow that's even reasonable

like somehow it's who are all these men going to have sex with if it's okay for them to have sex and not women

It's asinine and it's time we start telling all parties you don't want abortion around everybody start getting protected. Don't want to be a parent or pay child support start protecting yourself.

And the religious right needs to stay out of that conversation because they're the ones that don't want the conversation or the side effects.

Men and women bear the responsibility for pregnancy equally but as we see here, men seldom acknowledge their equal burden of responsibility.

The fact that women share the overwhelmingly disproportionate burden of responsibility for the consequences of decisions that of a right

that women get to be the primary stakeholder in all decisions made about pregnancy

and so requires an explicit protection from government intervention into those decisions that men enjoy by default.

A woman dresses scantily, goes out partying, and she gets raped. Isn’t it partially her fault if she gets pregnant?

She most likely knew the risks.

And statistically it’s inevitable.

Regardless of the means, she got pregnant knowing the chances.  

well, what we call "matter" certainly leaves us with "memories"

Are you saying they don't?

I wouldn't really have a proof that the mind really does interact with matter, other then that seems to be the case in everyone's experience. (Or at least mine) in my experience, and most people's they think they're thoughts cause actions. 

--> @Lemming

I 'imagine many Pro Choice, don't view a fetus as a human life, or sacred.

and that's the MASSIVE RED HERRING that keeps this issue in the purely emotional arena

There is no life there there is potential life there it is not a citizen, it is not born, it is not a human being yet.

most women believe it should be their choice whether or not to allow a tumor to grow inside them

I take it your pro-life but what about the life of the mother argument that most lifers make an exception for, you argued that arbitrary delineations is why the viability argument is flawed but so is the health of the mother argument because one can argue that with every pregnancy a woman’s health is at risk, do you mean to tell me that the government should interfere and decide a point where that risk is worth it?

If you don’t like that argument then what about the miscarriage argument? You mean to tell me that if a woman that planned on carrying her child to term and ends up miscarrying the law should do a murder investigation on? Does that sound like an ethical thing to do to a woman after she just lost her child? These are the questions that need answers if we’re ever going to go the route of making abortion illegal because looking at it through one lens alone isn’t practical/sustainable from a legislation perspective.

Shame is a powerful factor in controlling others short of violence or deception. I am not saying a person has a right to never be shamed, but the principle of free speech is wider than strict rights just as the golden rule is wider than strict moral liability.

To use your example, shame can effectively be used to make a new arrival feel so unwelcome on account of their skin that they cannot stand to stay. They didn't have a right to feel welcome, but it would have been better if they were treated without prejudice. There is a spirit of fairness, a spirit of rationality, a spirit of liberty that (as a christian might say) should be written on the heart not on stone.

exactly

give them an inch and you've flushed the entire plot

What issue do you have?

Origin of punishment would be anyone that threatens to punish by violation of rights or revocation of privileges. Who could realistically make such threats changes from town to town not to mention hundreds of years.

With that though, I do agree with TheMorningsStar that there's hypocrisy in how "pro-choice" is legislated--particularly the limitations set on how one behaves one's body.

most women believe it should be their choice whether or not to allow a tumor to grow inside them

kinda like how you probably expect to be able to tell a guest in your house to leave if they've overstayed their welcome

If you think you should be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body

then you consider her less than you and if you consider her less than you on some level you hate her and you can say whatever you want to you're lying through your goddamn teeth.

There is no life there there is potential life there it is not a citizen, it is not born, it is not a human being yet.

And you would gladly sacrifice the woman carrying that f****** fetus or even more so a clump of cells

And anybody that wants to spout off that it's something different is a lying to themselves and they're lying to everybody else.

However, the mind and body do clearly act. Whether you are a materialistic, Idealist or whatever, you most likely belief that your thoughts cause your actions. You need to drop either one or two. 

I can link meaningless YouTube videos as well if you want, but we all know how utterly pointless it is already.

it's not "pointless" if it illustrates the key point of this discussion

you suggest that all humans are either 100% male (OR) 100% female

the "meaningless" video provides some real-world examples of individuals who do not fit into your paradigm

No, it doesn't. It simply shows there are people that don't agree with reality. As I said, this conversation has become boring and utterly pointless. Now, either say something actually intelligent or don't bother saying anything at all... or do what you likely will and keep acting like you have something intelligent to say when you don't. As I said in a different thread, I really don't care about this place much anymore. It is clear that talking to you about this topic is a waste of time as you are so utterly convinced that you are correct and it is clear that discussions with you on the topic are as productive as talking with a brick wall.

I came to DART in hopes of actually finding that type of discussion because it has been missing from common discourse for years now, but it seems this place has grown to be home of as meaningless debate and discussion as everywhere else. The funny thing is how many people take this place seriously while it is such a joke. I'm done trying to put in effort here.

Your hatred of women is noted cuz that's the only reason to try to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

ok

this seems problematic

I debated with someone for over 20 pages one time. Analyzed hours of video footage. Turns out I was right. Any objective individual could see I was right. But it didn’t change that gentleman’s mind one bit because of Orange Man Bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i6D97pM9s

In this thread Deb 8 a bull is spamming garbage, you are doing nothing.

just because you lack appreciation for insightful commentary, doesn't automatically make it "spamming garbage"

The number of people that think that bodily autonomy is some right that is inviolable is astonishing. There are numerous ways that that exact right is already limited by other factors in the US that are never challenged, but as soon as the discussion becomes one of abortion it is "but muh bodily autonomy!" without ever making even an attempt at a half-decent argument.

I really miss the DDO of 2012-2015. Sure, there were the smooth brained commenters there, but I remember seeing genuine discussion with actual attempts at argumentation in the forums. I remember people actually admitting their position was not as strong as they thought (even if they almost never fully change their views). Here? On DART? That seems like a pipedream.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

by, "counterintuitive" do you mean perhaps "inaccurate" ? 

Your ability to produce sperm or eggs unimportant to me in determining if any given human can join the boy scouts or the army.

I do not take it into account when deciding which bathroom you should use. In no way does your (in)ability to produce sperm or eggs make it less damaging for personal wellbeing or the public health to investigate or prosecute criminal cases differently in this basis.

IF there is no legal distinction THEN what is the argument AGAINST accepting someone else's personal identity or even just treating it as though it were none of your buisness which of course also exists as an option?

IF X is true THEN biologically female persons should not be allowed to join the boy scouts. 

the "pro-binary" camp says, "you must be 100% man (OR) 100% woman"

Biological reproduction is the replication of organisms by whatever means that is accomplished

the terms male and female denote chromosome differences.

It isn't EITHER male or female but rather some COMBINATION of male and female.

In this case how do we decide how female one must be before they are a woman?

Men are adult males whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as insemination.

Women are adult females whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as gestation.

Its actually more of a spectrum than a binary even biologically speaking.

There are many adults who do not have a reproductive role at all.

This seems like an inconclusive standard.

It doesn't include all humans. 

Ah… who said we had a dispute?

I refer you back to my first post to you if you’re so inclined.

Desantis is just giving us a glimpse of what the Congressional activities and investigations are going to be like when the GOP takes over in 2022.

While I agree with the principle, the last 6 years have established a precedence that allows for the political retaliation against any political opposition. You can't expect all that to change over a matter of days as the public has accepted numerous violations. Trump warned that what they did to him will be done to others. Now we are just starting to see what he meant by that.

of course,

but if that individual makes their pro-noun-preference known-now

i will not presume to tell them they are "wrong" and or "inconsistent"

and i will comply, exactly as i generally do when someone points out that i have unintentionally mispronounced their name

A political attack that would never have happened if Trump never said the words "I am running for President"

My reply was in response to this question from you:

isn't DeSantis obliged to the members of his State, even those who hold opposing political views

Insofar as DeSantis has violated the Florida or US constitution, he is accountable to that, as I said already.

As has been said before, Disney executives have not lost one iota of their power to speak freely, considering they own multiple media platforms not available to most people.

The only way Disney executives can be incarcerated in this instance is if they refuse to pay taxes to Florida. Until then, they can say whatever they want, whenever they want.

The issue isn't really about free speech.

Politicians use the government to retaliate against political opposition at every chance. That has been going on since the founding of the country.

The real problem is how much of this political retaliation society has been willing to tolerate as "business as usual"

If this retaliation isn't a free speech violation, then no retaliation is.

I’ve never denied that.

I’m just saying taking the high road forever is unsustainable.

You still have yet to answer my question, which in itself is telling.

If a politician does not advance, or at least appear to advance the interests of at least a majority of the electorate, then he/she tends not to win re-election. As for constituents with opposing views, a leader is charged with advancing their interests insofar as the interests are in common between opposing factions, but where the interests of the minority electorate diverge and are also not protected by the state constitution, then no, the governor is not obliged to act outside the policy platform on which he was elected.

which between most people (who are not intimately involved) would be strictly beyond their respective epistemological limits

most people believe they can easily spot "a man" or "a woman" but this delusion is mostly a function of sample bias and a lack of disconfirmation

it's exactly like the people who say, "i can always spot a toupee, because all toupees are ugly and obvious" not realizing that they've likely encountered some number of "good toupees" which they've personally failed to identify

for example, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAZX65p9MIs

I would hate to have you as the President.

If we choose to take the higher road forever, sooner or later the country won’t exist. If a country attacked you, would you sit back and let them kill your own people. That’s the higher road right? 

At some point you have to say no. What point is that. You have yet to answer that.

I’m sure there are plenty of DeSantis voters who happen to be employed by Disney…

I’m a believer in fighting fire with fire if nothing else works. It’s why I support enhanced interrogation, but I digress.

I would condemn them. But if nothing is done about, which let’s be honest, hasn’t, Democrats should have no concern about it happening with them.

I understand taking the higher road, but there’s a limit to that in my view.

I’ve already said that I think it’s probably unconstitutional, but I understand where people are coming from. Liberal are using scorched earth tactics with their social/cultural issues, while conservatives just dilly dally on the higher road. Where do you think this men in women’s sports ends up in a decade? As a norm. It’s already happened with gay marriage and abortion. History tends to repeat itself; you just have to recognize it.

It’s a simple question: how far does it have to go for you to say enough is enough?

If DeSantis had no principles, he wouldn’t be fighting for what he and his constituents believe in.

Disney has made every effort to keep people inside the park. Hotel, food, attractions, busing all done within the park as long as you never leave. They have gone out of their way to make sure that the money people visiting the park or spending stay in the park.

Disney has sued daycare centers for showing Disney movies and not paying them for them, even though the daycare is purchased the DVDs.

Disney is one of the greediest companies on the planet.

I was shocked to find out they were given the type of discounts they have been given in Florida.

They want to play politics then they have to deal with the aftermath.

There's absolutely no reason for Disney to interfere with anything involving education in Florida as an entity.

Individuals have every right to talk about their local school system.

Disney is a media corporation. They can get whatever message out they want to. The fact that they have lost a special privilege of paying less tax does not affect that.

They even have their own network that they can get that special message out on.

Anyone that thinks Disney is being curtailed as far as free speech because they are now paying the same taxes as another business is kidding themselves.

Not to mention every employee at Disney should be or probably is a citizen of Florida an individually they still have free speech and the ability to vote.

The point here is hypocrisy. Rules for thee but not for me. When Democrats tell everyone to not buy Goya products because they support Trump, all is well. But when DeSantis calls out Disney for their shenanigans, there’s an uproar

I don’t mean *only* Disney here but Democrats who seek to use the levers of government to check and penalize speech. DeSantis appears to be demonstrating that he is willing and able to play these political tricks as well if that is how they want to play…