Republicans and evangelicals prove the position of "pro-life" is nothing but a myth

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,960
8,195
136
Evangelicals and republicians both view women as less than an equal to men that should be subservient to men, and the pro-life bullshit is just the easiest to control women.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Your right to the free exercise of religion stops when it becomes a public health hazard. I don't get to start a cult of murderhobos who go around poisoning people and then claim infringement when we all get locked up.

Does a woman's right to "bodily autonomy" stop when it comes at the cost of another's life?

I'll happily trade. I'll permit the government to arrest priests and pastors for holding services if you'll admit there's no right to bodily autonomy when it comes at the cost of killing someone.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Current actions are certainly infringing our civil rights. That tends to happen and be allowed during times of National Emergency.

I think that's probably why it's being generally permitted. But do you think this would stand for very long if put before the SCOTUS?
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
Does a woman's right to "bodily autonomy" stop when it comes at the cost of another's life?

I'll happily trade. I'll permit the government to arrest priests and pastors for holding services if you'll admit there's no right to bodily autonomy when it comes at the cost of killing someone.
Ah the same illogical argument you always post. Can you point to me at point during human development that it has been officially decided that personhood is conferred during pregnancy? When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Ah the same illogical argument you always post. Can you point to me at point during human development that it has been officially decided that personhood is conferred during pregnancy? When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement?

EDIT: My mistake, i missed your earlier response.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,746
40,188
136
They've been proving this for decades actually...

It's all about keeping women under that cultural/religious yoke. The sluts have to be punished. If it was really about the kids then these idiots would actually give a shit about the mothers and infants post birth. Religious conservatives are all about freedom - unless you're female. In that case, the party of small government is all for the Feds dictating what you can and can't do with your uterus.

Funny how these republican anti-abortion goals don't apply to an egg in a dish right? There's no woman involved there.

Same shit, different day. Show me an anti-choice conservative and I'll show you an un-American asshat with completely fabricated religious notions made in bad faith.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
I note you avoided my direct question to you.

Have you abandoned your support for the bodily autonomy argument?
Stop being so intellectually dishonest. I posted a link to my very post where I discussed that it isn't a black/white dichotomy that you are hypothesizing. Perhaps you should actually take a moment and put some genuine thought into a post by reading what I said nearly a year ago that you purposefully avoided.

But we all know why you are being so disingenuous. Why do you think one day there's no right to bodily autonomy, and now today you suddenly believe in it?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
I'm conflicted on the civil rights aspect of it, frankly. I'm pleased that the Catholic church voluntarily suspended masses and other services. But compelling them seems to me a pretty straightforward abridgement of the 1st amendment.

At any rate, "pro-life" usually means anti-abortion, whereas pro-choice usually means pro-abortion. One side wants abortion severely restricted if not banned, and the other wants it to remain available. Taken literally, the term pro-life doesn't make any more sense than pro-choice does.
Can you express why you are conflicted. You seem to feel that the right to an abortion, a legal right by the way, should be taken away by force of law to save innocent lives. Why would it strike you as odd that , say I, would want to take away your right of free assembly to save innocent lives?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Exactly. And, those of us who are reasonable and intelligent understand this. Unfortunately, we the reasonable and intelligent also have to co-exist with a lot of spoiled, self-entitled, stupid-ass people here in the States who have the self-preservation instincts of a retarded dodo.

Personally, I think the law should let us beat all of them over the head with clubs until they either comply, understand, or bleed to death. Guess it is good for them I'm not in charge. ;)
But it's good that you realize that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steltek

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,523
136
Does a woman's right to "bodily autonomy" stop when it comes at the cost of another's life?

I'll happily trade. I'll permit the government to arrest priests and pastors for holding services if you'll admit there's no right to bodily autonomy when it comes at the cost of killing someone.
This isn't a negotiation. A woman's right to bodily autonomy does not stop when it comes to the cost of another's life, as evidenced by her right to kill someone that is raping her.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126

Bodily autonomy is not a yes/no, black/white choice. This was addressed in a post your purposefully avoided.

You've confused me. Bodily autonomy is a choice now? What do you mean?

But good job on not addressing your contradiction. So what is it? There's no bodily autonomy on one day, but suddenly on another day, it exists?

Freedom of religion and association are spelled out specifically in the constitution.
 

Jebeelzabub

Member
Mar 7, 2008
31
0
66
They've been proving this for decades actually...

It's all about keeping women under that cultural/religious yoke. The sluts have to be punished. If it was really about the kids then these idiots would actually give a shit about the mothers and infants post birth. Religious conservatives are all about freedom - unless you're female. In that case, the party of small government is all for the Feds dictating what you can and can't do with your uterus.

Funny how these republican anti-abortion goals don't apply to an egg in a dish right? There's no woman involved there.

Same shit, different day. Show me an anti-choice conservative and I'll show you an un-American asshat with completely fabricated religious notions made in bad faith.

OMG, I had to de-lurk just to say that I laughed at your avatar, hadn't seen that one before!
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
This isn't a negotiation. A woman's right to bodily autonomy does not stop when it comes to the cost of another's life, as evidenced by her right to kill someone that is raping her.

Should it stop when it comes at the cost of an innocent, someone wholly blameless?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
You've confused me. Bodily autonomy is a choice now? What do you mean?



Freedom of religion and association are spelled out specifically in the constitution.
All personal rights are limited when they infringe on the rights of others. Remember it goes life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
You've confused me. Bodily autonomy is a choice now? What do you mean?

Seriously. Instead of trying to post on here, take some time to actually think what was written. You said there's no such thing as bodily autonomy. I've maintained, as always, that there's a spectrum. There are rights to autonomy, but these rights are not absolute.

Where you get the idea of "choice" I have no clue, as I am clearly referring to your false dichotomy. Perhaps you should actually explain yourself instead of posting questions that make very little sense.

Freedom of religion and association are spelled out specifically in the constitution.

That's not what you said:

"There is no right to bodily autonomy. The idea that someone in society may hold themselves aloof from society makes no sense, and suggests that society in turn may hold itself aloof, selectively denying a person the protection of the laws, for example. Society manifestly does not credit the claim. Society can conscript citizens into war,, compel them to public service, prohibit them to take illegal drugs or prostitute themselves, quarantine them, take blood samples from them, and require them to receive immunizations and submit to medical examinations, all legally in the public purpose, all in one way or another taking, restricting, or intruding into the body, and all without the person's consent. In the public purpose, it can plainly prohibit a woman from deliberately killing an innocent human being. "

One day, society can do anything, including "quarantine" and "taking, restricting, or intruding into the body, and all without the person's consent." Today, suddenly the Constitution exists. Which is it?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Ah the same illogical argument you always post. Can you point to me at point during human development that it has been officially decided that personhood is conferred during pregnancy? When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement?

I don't care much about personhood. I care about what constitutes a human being, because that's an empirical question.

Would you say this is a human being?

36_week_fetus.jpg
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Should it stop when it comes at the cost of an innocent, someone wholly blameless?
You are not talking about someone. You are talking to it's imaginary potential, how that someone you choose to represent in your head. For that you bring a religious indoctrination with you. In this way you dismiss the rights of a real someone, a pregnant woman and the evolutionary fact that pregnancy isn't a choice, but an evolutionary fact that only affects half the population. You wouldn't want some alien race making the rules for you, would you. Do unto others, remember?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
I don't care much about personhood. I care about what constitutes a human being, because that's an empirical question.

Would you say this is a human being?

That's your problem. For all these years and your illogical posts, you don't understand what the discussion about human personhood is actually about. The entire problem is when does one confer rights to the conceptus. When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement? When did they decide when personhood begins? That's what you are getting at with your selective terminology of "human being." Whether something is human or not doesn't matter. A tumor has unique genetics compared to the human individual it was cut out of, does that make it a person? Of course not. Its about what defines personhood and when something should receive rights and protections.

Perhaps you should finally read what is written in Roe v Wade. It may surprise you based on what you continually post about the topic.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Seriously. Instead of trying to post on here, take some time to actually think what was written. You said there's no such thing as bodily autonomy. I've maintained, as always, that there's a spectrum. There are rights to autonomy, but these rights are not absolute.

If they can extend so far as to kill an innocent, I'd say they extend too far.

Where you get the idea of "choice" I have no clue...

You might refer to your own post a few minutes ago.

That's not what you said:

"There is no right to bodily autonomy. The idea that someone in society may hold themselves aloof from society makes no sense, and suggests that society in turn may hold itself aloof, selectively denying a person the protection of the laws, for example. Society manifestly does not credit the claim. Society can conscript citizens into war,, compel them to public service, prohibit them to take illegal drugs or prostitute themselves, quarantine them, take blood samples from them, and require them to receive immunizations and submit to medical examinations, all legally in the public purpose, all in one way or another taking, restricting, or intruding into the body, and all without the person's consent. In the public purpose, it can plainly prohibit a woman from deliberately killing an innocent human being. "

One day, society can do anything, including "quarantine" and "selectively denying a person the protection of the laws." Today, suddenly the Constitution exists. Which is it?

The point was that society can do those things. A pastor who gets arrested protests by invoking his first amendment rights, not by claiming autonomy. A first amendment claim is confined to the rules of the society the plaintiff agreed to join, whereas autonomy claims that the plaintiff isn't bound by society's rules in the first place, while still reaping the benefit of living in society.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136
I was going to complain that a quarantine topic was reduced to an abortion topic, but then I re-read the title.... okay then, fair play.

You all have the wrong idea on abortion. The two sides CANNOT be reconciled. You will not convert anyone to your side here. What we need is a compromise based on the stage of the pregnancy. At a certain point we stop !@#$ing around and protect life. But in the early stages of development we should be practical and look the other way. Preach not to get pregnant and not to abort, but allow it in the first trimester. Encourage it to happen quickly - if that's what they want.

It is more humane and less cruel that way. Than chopping up, dismembering, burning, or poisoning a healthy and perfectly viable child.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
That's your problem. For all these years and your illogical posts, you don't understand what the discussion about human personhood is actually about. The entire problem is when does one confer rights to the conceptus. When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement? When did they decide when personhood begins? That's what you are getting at with your selective terminology of "human being." Whether something is human or not doesn't matter. A tumor has unique genetics compared to the human individual it was cut out of, does that make it a person? Of course not. Its about what defines personhood and when something should receive rights and protections.

Perhaps you should finally read what is written in Roe v Wade. It may surprise you based on what you continually post about the topic.

What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I was going to complain that a quarantine topic was reduced to an abortion topic, but then I re-read the title.... okay then, fair play.

You all have the wrong idea on abortion. The two sides CANNOT be reconciled. You will not convert anyone to your side here. What we need is a compromise based on the stage of the pregnancy. At a certain point we stop !@#$ing around and protect life. But in the early stages of development we should be practical and look the other way. Preach not to get pregnant and not to abort, but allow it in the first trimester. Encourage it to happen quickly - if that's what they want.

It is more humane and less cruel that way. Than chopping up, dismembering, burning, or poisoning a healthy and perfectly viable child.

If we were to enact a 20 week ban, Planned Parenthood and NARAL would mob the White House lawn in Handmaid's Tale outfits. We can't even have late-term abortion bans, to say nothing of second trimester ones, without them lamenting the onset of a theocracy.