sexist

How do you think a victim of rape would feel having her political belief compared to rape? There are millions of women who call themselves pro-life (about 47% according to Gallup). Are you saying that a victim of rape who is disagrees with you about abortion is supporting rape?

What you are saying is an incredibly cruel thing to say. You are using rape to score cheap political points.

Not any more than you, who is deliberately starting an argument with me. Since you are pro choice, why are you even debating this?

Just because I agree broadly with the pro-choice side, doesn't mean that the pro-choice side isn't making bullshit points.

- I believe that abortion should be safe and legal for the first part of pregnancy (20 weeks is a stage often put forward).

- I believe there are moral issue with abortion, particularly in the late stages of pregnancy when a fetus is clearly able to function as a human being outside the womb.

- The polls make it clear that roughly equal numbers of men and woman are pro-life, and pro-choice. This is not an issue that breaks down on gender lines.

- Most people aren't extreme pro-choice (there should be no laws restricting a woman's right to an abortion). Most people aren't extreme pro-life either. There is a lot of room in the middle, and most people have beliefs somewhere between the two extremes.

So, yes both can be true.

I can agree broadly with the pro-choice argument, that abortion should be safe, legal and accessible.

At the same time I can denounce the ridiculous claims coming from the pro-choice extremes... the claim that women who oppose abortion are supporting "rape" are ridiculous.

Call me anti-extremism.

You can believe anything you want to believe. It's your right and your choice.

Legislating my right and my choice is wrong.

That's a very nice bumper sticker Neptune.

You and the NRA have something in common (every law takes away someone's rights and choices).

Trying to shame me into giving in to having my body regulated isn't going to work. Here I thought you were against personal insults.

Guess I was wrong about that.

Oh for the love of Mike.

neptune, I have no idea what max is saying to you, but can't you see every response is just feeding him?

can't you see he'll just back and forth with you forever if you keep responding?


Even now, he's getting off on the fact I even have directed a comment about him, to you.

I appreciate your concern, Chai, but I've been around long enough to know how Max runs up 28 pages of saying the same thing over and over again, bolding "key" portions to ad nausem.

However, it is important to point out to the Kylies of this country that their rights and beliefs do not have to interfere with mine. She's going to learn that there are Max's here that believe they can wear you down to the point you'll just give in just to shut them up or hurl insults and try to make you believe you're extreme in some way.

I reject the notion that somehow I'm a lesser person for my beliefs, or too extreme or too angry for someone's liking.

But the thing is neptune, from what I've seen of her growing adoration of another bat **** crazy person here, she may waste a lot of her time and get unduly hurt, when the tables are turned on her.

I know, I know, she's a big girl. She'll figure it out. But the time that takes, and the (not addreseds to you neptune) the blah blah blah that fills up space just seems to waste so much time.

You're not a lesser person for your beliefs. Obviously. I th0ught that article you posted was great. The part about a rapist continuing to have power over you long after the even really hit me in the gut. Thanks for posting it.

Rather than being worn down, why not just put on ignore? It's not like you're ignoring someone whose point of view you just don't agree with. It's more like IRL to me when you just choose not to associate with that crazy neighbor 2 houses down. People like max and others aren't part of real life. There're just annoying bleeps and bloops. Just like I may be to others. Difference in me though is I don't care if someone chooses not to read or respond to me. To them it's eliminating their reason for being.

If you want to engage for whatever reason with whom there's no possibility of productive exchange, I respect that.

Carry on.

There are reasonable people on both sides of the abortion issue. This is a difficult issue bcause it involves peoples ideas oen the value of human life on one side with issues around woman's rights on the other side.

It would be possible to have a respectful discussion that acknowledged that there are good people on both sides of this issue taking many positions between the two extremes. I have not seen a single person here (other than me) admit that there are respectable people on both sides.

Rather than discussing the actual issues, people here are..

- Refusing to accept that 47% of American women (accoring to Gallup and Pew) consider them selves to be pro-life, and that a significant majority of women (according to Gallup) believe that there should be some legal restrictions on abortion. Views on abortion are complicated and most women and men are not on the extremes.

- Attacking anyone who dares to disagree. The OP was an attack (that anyone who disagrees is sexist). Kaylie was attacked when she disgreed.

- Suggesting that there should be a separate legislature for women.

- Stating that restrictions on abortion are the "same as rape".

This thread is about extremism. It is a view that ignores the voices of the millions of women who disagree with the political narrative. It is harmful to our country. It will hurt the Democrats chance of beating Trump in 2020.

I am glad that Neptune and Chai are deciding to leave this thread. If that is the case, I will too... but someone needs to counter the extremism on this thread.

Yes Max, there ARE reasonable people on BOTH sides. That's been established long ago. For you to think something has changed that makes that not so is ridiculous.

Refusing to accept I refuse to be legislated into submission is YOUR problem, not mine. I am not being extreme or disrespectful or emotional or angry. Chai did not say she was leaving this thread, she said she refuses to engage with you. To say that I am leaving this thread is extremely presumptuous in your part. I know you probably feel you are the defender against anything feminist. That is your right, your obligation to your own moral code.

But when your moral codes steps over the line and wants to legislate what happens to my body, then it is no longer your right to do so. It seems you forget that. It seems you only want to argue with me instead of wanting to make sure pregnancy is a choice and not a forced servitude.

Again, everyone has an opinion about abortion. That's ok, have it. But legislating against body autonomy is wrong. And you know that. You've said so yourself. Please stop arguing about something we both agree on.

Good we have a start. let's continue with this idea. Let's try to understand the reasonable point of view of each side (rather than attacking the people who hold them).

Many women feel that there is another human life involved, and that it is the rights of the developing fetus that are at the greatest risk. Your body isn't the only body involved in an abortion... there is another life (whether you think it is fully human or not).

I don't believe that women (and men) who are in favor of "legislating against body autonomy". These are your words, I bet you can't find any pro-life woman saying this.

Pro-life women are legislating to protect the life of the unborn. Abortion does undoubtedly end a life.... this is a scientific fact. They aren't sexists. They aren't rapists. They are people who see a developing fetus as a human body... to them it isn't just your body.

I also understand the position of pro-choice men and women. They are absolutely correct that pregnancy involves the body of a woman and that legislating abortion takes away choices that a woman can make.

If you want to respect women even though they disagree, you need to start by acknowledging their actual position. Insulting women, or denying their existence, simply because they disagree with you isn't helpful.

There is a similar argument made by the NRA that claims that someone has the absolute power to defend their own home. The "castle" laws they want give the right of a homeowner to kill anyone in their house with permission. The NRA, like you, refuses to be legislated into submission.

To them legislating against the sovereignty of home is wrong... even though it comes to taking a life.

I find these absolutist arguments to be unsatisfying whether it comes to gun rights, or abortion rights.

Science Not Fiction
Your Body, Your Choice: Fight for Your Somatic Rights
By Kyle Munkittrick | June 20, 2011 12:18 pm

“My body, my choice.” We hear that slogan constantly, but what the hell do those four words mean?

Many of us have one or two political issues surrounding our bodies that get us fired up. Many of you reading this right now probably have some hot-button issue on your mind. Maybe it’s abortion, or recreational drug usage, or marriage rights, or surrogate pregnancy, or assisted suicide, or sex work, or voluntary amputation, or gender reassignment surgery.

For each of these issues, there are four words that define our belief about our rights, “My body, my choice.” How you react to those words determine which side of any of those debates you are on. That’s just the thing, though – there aren’t a bunch of little debates, there is just one big debate being argued on multiple fronts. All of these issues find their home in my field of philosophy: bioethics. And within the bioethics community, there is a small contingency that supports a person’s right to choose what to do with their body in every single one of those examples. Transhumanists make up part of that contingency.

If you are pro-choice on abortion or think that gender reassignment surgery is an option everyone should have, you agree with transhumanism on at least one issue. Many current political arguments are skirmishes and turf battles in what is a movement toward what one might call somatic rights. In some cases the law is clear, as it is with marriage rights or drug usage, and the arguments are over whether or not to remove, amend, or change the law. Other cases are so ambiguous that the law is struggling to define itself, as with surrogate pregnancy and voluntary amputation. And sooner or later (I’ve given up on guessing time-frames), instead of merely arguing over what we’re allowed to do with the body we’re born with, there will be debates about our rights to choose what kind of body we have. By looking at the futuristic ideas of genetic engineering and robotic prosthetic technology, we can understand how transhumanism maximizes the “my body, my choice” mantra.

We have a lot of laws about what you can’t do with your body. On the other hand, think about how many different things can be defended with “It’s my body, I’ll do what I want!” Why do we say that? The answer seems painfully obvious: because we’re the only ones who know what it’s like to have our body and it’s probably the only thing we really, truly own. No one can take your body without also taking your life – which as it turns out, is a great way to put your money where your mouth is when you’re a philosopher. Like any good philosopher, however, my job is to examine the painfully obvious. In part, because if it’s all so damn obvious, then why does every lawmaker, religious leader, and jerk with a megaphone think they have a right to tell you or me what to do with our bodies? Is it just jealousy?

Let’s say we live in the future and I have the option to get a robot body and genetically modify my brain to make myself smarter, kinder, and happier. My guess is many people would be very upset if I was traipsing around with a glorious, glistening body made of heretofore unheard of alloys with a genetically tricked-out brain. I would be a magnificent testament to science and engineering. I would be happier, healthier, and smarter. So what possible justification would the paternalists of the world have for telling me I can’t upgrade my physical body?

There are three responses:

Response One: “Your life is just too important for me to let you ruin it, let me set some ground rules to make sure you don’t make a decision you’ll regret later.” The paternalist rule-makers paint themselves as bearing the burden of responsibility for our lives. We don’t know what is good for us, but they do.

Respnose Two: “What about the children?” Somewhere, out there, is a person with a permanent scowl on his or her face, of whom children are frightened, who has already figured out how my robot body will hurt the children. I imagine it will involve something like “sets a bad impression.”

Response Three: “It breaks with tradition and is immoral.” Understand here that tradition and morality are not ethics. I differentiate morals and ethics in the following way. “Thou shall not kill” is a moral rule. “The biological mother should carry and raise the child, anything else is strange and wrong” is tradition. “Banning marriage between consenting adults of the same-sex is unethical because it infringes upon the life, liberty, and happiness of those individuals based on sexual preference” is ethics. See that “because?” Only in ethics do you have a logical reason following the normative claim. Morality and tradition rely upon the authority of some figure (imagined or not) or history (accurate or not).

In each case, the actual right to your body is deferred to some third party, either the paternalists, the hypothetical children, or unreasoned authority. Transhumanists and like-minded bioethicists recognize that somatic rights are individual rights. That means that, unless they harm someone else directly, you should be able to do as you please. I find it amazing that for all of our amendments protecting freedom of religion, and assembly, and the press, we lack an amendment protecting freedom of bodily self-determination.

A rough and ready version of what freedom of bodily self-determination might look like has three key principles:

“My body, my choice” means that if what you do only affects your body, you should have the right to do it. Period, full stop.

That includes allowing someone to do something to your body. So:
If you want to have something done to your body (e.g. surgery to modify your body or to allow a person to pay you to do something with your body), then you should have the right to do that.

If you don’t want something to happen to your body (e.g. for your body to become pregnant or for it to be kept working at all costs (both in terms of money and dignity)), then you should have that right as well.

Because you have the right to do something, you are also responsible for the results of that decision. For example, if you choose to do drugs, you are culpable for decisions you make while under the influence of those drugs. If you choose to modify your body and, later regret the decision, the fault is no one’s but your own. These simple concepts have a huge impact on not only current laws around issues like abortion, sex assignment surgery in infants, and assisted suicide, but possible future ones surrounding technologies like genetic enhancement, anti-aging medicine, cognitive enhancing drugs, designer babies, voluntary prosthetic augmentation, and cybernetics. As technology advances, we will have more and more ways to choose what to do with our bodies.

As the politics of the body continue to generate controversy, it is important those on the side of choice and freedom of bodily-determination recognize where their allies are. Transhumanists and liberal bioethicists, yes, but also feminists, marriage rights proponents, sex worker advocates, those who would end the drug war, libertarians, and the LGBT community. These groups are fast coming to the conclusion that it is important we cherish our basic biological freedoms and protect our somatic rights.

That means arguing for pro-choice body issues now, in the present. And for those out there who find themselves pro-choice on some issues (e.g. gay marriage and abortion) but anti-choice on others (assisted suicide and genetic engineering), you’d best reevaluate why you have conflicting stances. You shouldn’t.

Neptune, did you read this article before posting it? It makes an interesting argument... it might not be saying what you think it says.

I can safely assume I know more about the subject than you. It was my legal argument. I won the case.

I didn't think you would be in favor of legalized prostitution... congratulations on surprising me.

That was amazing AF.

yo people...the only reason i havent been on the thread for the past few days is because ive been doin alot of research and i still am...but pls dont attack @not-so-shy-herron-24 just bc of what she beleives...we r all different and have different views of things

Hey kaylie, I'm excited to see you back, and really pleased to hear you are doing research.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Also, I don't believe anyone attacked herron, or you for that matter.

Honestly? I don't know what max has been saying, as I put him on ignore long long ago. I mention him because your reply was addressed to him. But, his mode of posting is to take the opposing side of whatever has been said, and to pester whoever he is honed in on with all sorts of imaginations. Some people are just not happy unless they are trolling.

You need to make up your mind about different posters, including me.

Please come back and let us know what you've learned.