Abortion is morally wrong

[Clueless Morgan]

And what do you want me to do? Force her to adopt my pro-choice view? That's not how it works. Abortion is probably the matter she is less likely to change her opinion

You can't force anyone to change their beliefs but you can try to convince them that the position they hold subjugates half the population.

I don't have a problem with pro-life people because abortion is something that doesn't apply to me (I'm a male)

So... then you also don't care about sexual equality, like women having the right to vote or being paid equal wages for equal work, then either, right?

Or racial equality? Because, you know, you have you're rights, who cares about those other people whose skins happens to be a different color.

Or sexual rights, either, I assume - why should you care, after all? You can legally marry your girlfriend right now, what does it matter if those two lesbians can get married? It doesn't effect your life.

I don't give a shit about people being pro-life. If they like embryos so much, I will let them like embryos, as long as they don't make me love embryos too.

They're trying to force me, and every other woman, into it, though.

But what do you care? You're male, it doesn't effect you.

[Losty]

Umm people who vote pro-life are trying to legally force everyone to love embryos too. Duh

[Dystopia]

And what do you want me to do? Force her to adopt my pro-choice view? That's not how it works. Abortion is probably the matter she is less likely to change her opinion

You can't force anyone to change their beliefs but you can try to convince them that the position they hold subjugates half the population.

I don't have a problem with pro-life people because abortion is something that doesn't apply to me (I'm a male)

So... then you also don't care about sexual equality, like women having the right to vote or being paid equal wages for equal work, then either, right?

Or racial equality? Because, you know, you have you're rights, who cares about those other people whose skins happens to be a different color.

Or sexual rights, either, I assume - why should you care, after all? You can legally marry your girlfriend right now, what does it matter if those two lesbians can get married? It doesn't effect your life.

I don't give a shit about people being pro-life. If they like embryos so much, I will let them like embryos, as long as they don't make me love embryos too.

They're trying to force me, and every other woman, into it, though.

But what do you care? You're male, it doesn't effect you.

It's not that I don't care about rights. I will vote yes if asked. However between choosing saving my country from bankrupt giving us an economical boost and allowing 15000 women per year to abort I will chose the first. I may not agree with parties on social issues, but economic measures come first. That's my thinking. It's not going to help me vote for communist or socialist parties, they may support pro-choice, but present no realistic measures to help us.

I am not against you having your rights as a female, but I won't hesitate in voting for a party that is against abortion if the economical measures benefit my country more. Logically I would never vote for someone who supports slavery or racial inequality, but allowing two gay people to marry doesn't have the same importance of banning slavery, considering all gay people were already allowed to have tax benefits and live together. The same goes for allowing abortion, it may be important, but with sexual education and widespread of contraceptives it becomes unnecessary generally, and even when illegal there is always the exceptional cases, it doesn't have the same seriousness as banning gender rights, banning slavery or racial equality, those are rights that are hierarchically superior.

[Ravenshire]

Umm people who vote pro-life are trying to legally force everyone to love embryos too. Duh

The worst part is, that's all they want you to love. They're not pro life. They're pro birth, regardless of circumstance. Once the kid's born, the pro-lifers quit giving even the tinyist of shits. Mother and child could both starve to death as far as they're concerned.

[Silver]

The worst part is, that's all they want you to love. They're not pro life. They're pro birth, regardless of circumstance. Once the kid's born, the pro-lifers quit giving even the tinyist of shits. Mother and child could both starve to death as far as they're concerned.

This always deserves rementioning due to precisely how true it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't understand how it's relevant?
We need doctors. Everyone. All of society. They must be required to drop their personal issues at the door and do their jobs. It's a necessity.

I would disagree, they're immensely useful - but not necessary. But lets roll with it, the necessity of a profession determines whether or not people in that profession are capable of waiving rights/ought to waive rights. All of my "objectionable organization" responses apply. And even moreso......do I have to join some organization or association? Some needed profession? Why can;t I just waive my rights as a "non-necessary" joe?

I'm not sure about Portugal. Hell I'm not even positive about USA, but I'm pretty sure a doctor is legally required to do whatever they can to save someone who is dying.

Negatron. They are under no such legal obligations. They can be held accountable for malpractice - but if they refuse treatment, that's a non starter - and they -can- refuse treatment, for a variety of reason.

I explained where I went with this earlier. To recap simply. A consistent application of this sort of justification would probably slit the throat of some other sacred cow you wouldn't want me to touch. Normally I;m okay with slippery slopes - we'll handle the permutations as they arise. But this is about our rights - which are fundamental to law. If the slope is so much as covered with dew when it comes to rights -it's time to close down the mountain while we troubleshoot.

[Esquilax]

Okay, let's trade assertions, then:

No it isn't.

Got anything real?

You must be a hit with neo-cons.

So... what? It's okay for you to make unfounded assertions, but not for anyone else to? Even when they're very obviously calling you on the ineffectiveness of that as an argument?

[Jackalope]

We need doctors. Everyone. All of society. They must be required to drop their personal issues at the door and do their jobs. It's a necessity.

I'm about as pro-choice as they come - but there are lines to be drawn. One line I draw is that I would not *ever* seek to compel a physician to perform a procedure that they believe is morally equivalent to murder.

If we *did* do that - you know what you'd see? A whole lot less practicing OB-GYNs, and the world would be worse off for it.

[Losty]

I don't understand how it's relevant?
We need doctors. Everyone. All of society. They must be required to drop their personal issues at the door and do their jobs. It's a necessity.

I would disagree, they're immensely useful - but not necessary. But lets roll with it, the necessity of a profession determines whether or not people in that profession are capable of waiving rights/ought to waive rights. All of my "objectionable organization" responses apply. And even moreso......do I have to join some organization or association? Some needed profession? Why can;t I just waive my rights as a "non-necessary" joe?

My question is, why do you think a doctor being required to save a dying patient would ever mean waiving their rights? They're not legally required to be doctors. They have a right to quit their job. Do you think requiring Christian strippers to strip is a violation of their rights?

I'm not sure about Portugal. Hell I'm not even positive about USA, but I'm pretty sure a doctor is legally required to do whatever they can to save someone who is dying.

Negatron. They are under no such legal obligations. They can be held accountable for malpractice - but if they refuse treatment, that's a non starter - and they -can- refuse treatment, for a variety of reason.

I explained where I went with this earlier. To recap simply. A consistent application of this sort of justification would probably slit the throat of some other sacred cow you wouldn't want me to touch. Normally I;m okay with slippery slopes - we'll handle the permutations as they arise. But this is about our rights - which are fundamental to law. If the slope is so much as covered with dew when it comes to rights -it's time to close down the mountain while we troubleshoot.

I'm sorry, love, you're going to have to dumb it down for me because I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.

[Jackalope]

I'm not sure about Portugal. Hell I'm not even positive about USA, but I'm pretty sure a doctor is legally required to do whatever they can to save someone who is dying.

Negatron. They are under no such legal obligations. They can be held accountable for malpractice - but if they refuse treatment, that's a non starter - and they -can- refuse treatment, for a variety of reason.

This is absolutely true. They can't refuse treatment for the host of usual unlawful discriminatory reasons, but they can absolutely refuse to treat because "fuck you, that's why" all they want.

Now, hospitals, on the other hand, have a legal obligation to stabilize a critical patient. Individual physicians, not so much.