Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
6,154
Likes
9,413
AFL Club
Collingwood
Reproductive rights of a woman? Think that may fall under feminism, at least until men can carry a pregnancy to full term.
But that's an over simplification that assumes the unborn baby has no rights. A baby 1 minute after birth has human rights. To kill it would be murder. The more extreme elements of feminism believe that 1 minute prior to birth, it has zero rights. What a difference 2 minutes can make.

The debate is at what point does the baby gain rights. Personally I'm ok with abortions that are done early and with good reason. But it's an ugly look (to put it mildly) to see such a large movement make the killing of babies one of its top priorities. I guess they've run out of reasonable things to claim victim status over.
 

Maggie5

Spec Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
35,576
Likes
32,395
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
Moderator #6,903
But that's an over simplification that assumes the unborn baby has no rights. A baby 1 minute after birth has human rights. To kill it would be murder. The more extreme elements of feminism believe that 1 minute prior to birth, it has zero rights. What a difference 2 minutes can make.

The debate is at what point does the baby gain rights. Personally I'm ok with abortions that are done early and with good reason. But it's an ugly look (to put it mildly) to see such a large movement make the killing of babies one of its top priorities. I guess they've run out of reasonable things to claim victim status over.
No point in discussing further when you start using such emotive language.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Posts
32,853
Likes
35,346
Location
On the south side now
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
nil
Moderator #6,918
Came across an interesting an argument relating to the abortion discussion.

To paraphrase - it goes like this (and this may relate to US law rather than here):
- You have complete autonomy over how your organs are used while you're alive and after your'e dead.
- If you die, and you have a perfectly good heart/liver/cornea/kidney - it CANNOT be used to save another life if you did not consent to it prior to dying.
- If you are alive, and have a perfectly functioning kidney - you are under no obligation to give it to someone, even if it would save their life.

Ultimately - your life, your organs, are yours to use as you see fit. Even if you can save a life, even if you can save the life of your own child there is no law saying you have to do so.

But with an unborn fetus/child/baby (whatever framing you use) people want to change that. People want to say "no - you must use your organs to fuel this unborn - you must. You shouldn't have a choice - your choice ended".

People make it sound like an abortion is like going down to the Telstra shop and cancelling your phone plan. (Which isn't as easy as it sounds). But an abortion, if you've ever been there with someone going through it, is a damn difficult decision to make. Nobody does it for FUN. Nobody does it lightly. It's an incredibly difficult choice to make, so to force women into only having one option in that situation, in my view, is ******. It's so limiting, it's such a violation of freedom.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Posts
17,464
Likes
32,050
Location
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Moderator #6,921
Free pro tip - if you're going to use an alt account to get around board bans, it's best you don't kick sand in the face of the mods who are giving you a break by posting quite terrible personal insults, very dubious accusations and label everyone who disagrees as an idiot. It probably won't get you far.
 
Top Bottom