Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57080
    13 Apr '18 08:38
    Ultimately, you just can’t have enough abortions.
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Apr '18 12:46
    Originally posted by @mchill
    That line of reasoning is preposterous.


    You think so? Just a wild guess. sh76 and quack quack are both males, right? Why am I not surprised they'd think this way.😲

    Here is a thought for both of you. If legal decisions regarding male reproductive rights were made solely by women, would you still feel this way?
    solely?

    Really, mchill?

    solely?

    A blatantly false and outrageous characterization. Women make up a majority of voters. That's right, mchill, a majority. Abortion policy is set largely by popularly elected representatives (except for limitations on abortion restrictions set by the Supreme Court).
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    13 Apr '18 13:411 edit
    Originally posted by @sh76
    solely?

    Really, mchill?

    solely?

    A blatantly false and outrageous characterization. Women make up a majority of voters. That's right, mchill, a majority. Abortion policy is set largely by popularly elected representatives (except for limitations on abortion restrictions set by the Supreme Court).
    Well, as you very well know (and you keep reminding us), the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. The majority doesn't always gets its way. This coupled with gerrymandering and your electoral system bullcrap renders your point ... lacking.


    Speaking of public opinion: http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

    EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, i meant the "not a democracy but a republic" to be sarcastic. Absolutely nowhere does it say that republics should be democracies, it's just something you americans love so that rednecks have more voting power than a californian.
  4. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1420
    13 Apr '18 13:463 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    solely?

    Really, mchill?

    solely?

    A blatantly false and outrageous characterization. Women make up a majority of voters. That's right, mchill, a majority. Abortion policy is set largely by popularly elected representatives (except for limitations on abortion restrictions set by the Supreme Court).
    A blatantly false and outrageous characterization. Women make up a majority of voters. That's right, mchill, a majority.


    sh76 - Women may indeed make up a majority of voters, but older, well to do males make up the overwhelming majority of lawmakers, and anyone who says that does not matter is not being realistic, in addition, you've been around long enough to know these older male lawmakers don't always march in lockstep with those who elected them. With all due respect to your legal knowledge, you've never been an impoverished woman who has to make the agonizing choice of getting an abortion or facing the stark reality of trying to raise that child in circumstances where you struggle daily to eat and find shelter yourself. Normally I would agree with you on this, but I firmly believe this is a special case. Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes on this issue, and have to deal with what they face, you can't know the whole story. 🙂
  5. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55792
    13 Apr '18 16:46
    Originally posted by @mchill
    A blatantly false and outrageous characterization. Women make up a majority of voters. That's right, mchill, a majority.


    sh76 - Women may indeed make up a majority of voters, but older, well to do males make up the overwhelming majority of lawmakers, and anyone who says that does not matter is not being realistic, in addition, you've been around long en ...[text shortened]... 's shoes on this issue, and have to deal with what they face, you can't know the whole story. 🙂
    At one time liberals were at least principled in their arguments that certain rights should be extended to everyone. You might argue whether it was a right or whether society should be required to give a benefit to everyone but at least it was a right for everyone.
    Here, your desire to circumvent our process and take away voting rights from men in order to railroad a specific result is outrageous -- the same way denying people the right to vote because of their race or sexual orientation is outrageous.
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Apr '18 19:04
    Originally posted by @mchill
    A blatantly false and outrageous characterization. Women make up a majority of voters. That's right, mchill, a majority.


    sh76 - Women may indeed make up a majority of voters, but older, well to do males make up the overwhelming majority of lawmakers, and anyone who says that does not matter is not being realistic, in addition, you've been around long en ...[text shortened]... 's shoes on this issue, and have to deal with what they face, you can't know the whole story. 🙂
    === Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes on this issue, and have to deal with what they face, you can't know the whole story. ===

    Does that mean that the only people who should be involved in determining whether banks should be regulated are bankers? Don't judge Goldman-Sachs until you've worked on its trading floor for a year, right?

    You don't have to experience something to have your opinion on how to run it count as much as anyone else's.

    Abortion regulations are invalid insofar as they violate the natural rights to life and privacy of the woman. Beyond that, they are subject to regulation by elected government to the same extent as any other conduct. This is practically axiomatic.
  7. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1420
    13 Apr '18 19:518 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    === Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes on this issue, and have to deal with what they face, you can't know the whole story. ===

    Does that mean that the only people who should be involved in determining whether banks should be regulated are bankers? Don't judge Goldman-Sachs until you've worked on its trading floor for a year, right?

    You don't ...[text shortened]... on by elected government to the same extent as any other conduct. This is practically axiomatic.
    Does that mean that the only people who should be involved in determining whether banks should be regulated are bankers?


    sh76 - I appreciate your attempts to use logic here, but there is a world of difference between an upper middle class male banker or lawmaker who just returned from a weekend skiing trip, sitting at a desk, contemplating the details of banking regulations, and a malnourished, pregnant young woman contemplating the details of raising a child for the next 20 years while living in a car. Unorthodox and indulgent as my idea might sound, I stand by what I said.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    13 Apr '18 20:461 edit
    Originally posted by @vivify
    With abortion, there are many people who believe it's murder of an unborn child. So whether you agree an unborn is a person or not, the pro-life movement has framed this as a human rights issue. To them, it's not a matter of controlling women; that's why stems cells which have already been removed from a woman's body is also a hot-button issue.

    Person ...[text shortened]... could definitely be made to let women exclusively decide all legislative issues involving women.
    "It still must be pointed out that men often don't have the best interests of women at heart
    Men simply lack empathy when it comes to women's issues."
    --Vivify

    There's also a (continuing) tradition of 'scientific sexism' (akin to 'scientific racism' ) in
    which male academics claim that their sexist biases must be scientifically supported.
    _The Mismeasure of Woman_ by Carol Tavris is an early book criticizing 'scientific sexism'.

    I suspect that more men here would take this seriously if it were posted by a man.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    13 Apr '18 20:551 edit
    Originally posted by @sh76 to Mchill
    === Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes on this issue, and have to deal with what they face, you can't know the whole story. ===

    Does that mean that the only people who should be involved in determining whether banks should be regulated are bankers? Don't judge Goldman-Sachs until you've worked on its trading floor for a year, right?
    ...[text shortened]... on by elected government to the same extent as any other conduct. This is practically axiomatic.
    "You don't have to experience something to have your opinion on how to run it count as much as anyone else's."
    --Sh76

    That depends. The ignorant are not necessarily as qualified as the knowledgeable to
    have their opinions counted.

    In the early days of the USSR, a Soviet university mathematics department had all its
    decisions made (including about curriculum) by holding a popular vote of all its employees.
    That meant that a person cleaning the building had an equal vote with a professor of mathematics.
    One professor sighed and said, "I approve of democracy, but this is ridiculous."

    Today it's generally accepted that a woman who has proper training (and may have been
    a rape victim herself) tends to be more effective than a man without such training or experience
    at advising women who have been raped, particularly shortly after the crimes have occurred.
Back to Top