Note to others:henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:13 amSo, at no point will you and me talk about reproductive control before pregnancy, yeah?
Please explain to me how the points I raise here...
And here...No, what abortion is always about is this: a woman [and only a woman] gets pregnant and does not want to be pregnant. For any number of personal reasons rooted in the life that she [and only she] lives. Then the part where squabbles erupt over when human life actually begins. And then the part where there are conflicting reactions to how the pregnancy occurred...defective birth control device, rape, incest. Then the part where things change in the woman's life prompting her to change her mind about the pregnancy. Then the part where to abort or not to abort becomes deeply embedded in the woman's mental health. Or in her physical health.
Then the part where in some states [or in some entire nations] none of that complex "existential stuff" matters. If a woman gets pregnant [whatever the circumstances] she must give birth. Or be charged with first degree premeditated murder.
Reproductive control is obviously an important component of the debate. If the state can seize control of it and force woman to give birth, what does that tell you about the gap between men and women in regard to social, political and economic equality?
...have nothing to do with reproduction from many a woman's frame of mind both before and after a pregnancy.A woman wants to become a mother, but given the circumstances in her life, not now. So, knowing that birth control is not always 100% effective, or the possibility that she might be raped, she should get an operation to prevent a pregnancy. Then, when she wants to become pregnant, get the operation reversed?
Okay, what if during the pregnancy that she does want, circumstances dramatically change in her life and she no longer wants it. Too bad? If she has an abortion then it is perfectly reasonable to charge her with first degree premeditated murder? Or if she has the baby and then decides to hold off on her next child, get the operation again? Repeat as necessary until menopause?
I'm not about leaving women in the dark regarding tubal ligation and vasectomy. I'm about how a woman might not think about them in the same way a man does, given the biological fact that no man can ever be confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.
My ex-wife and I decided that my getting a vasectomy was the right thing to do after the birth of our daughter. Me because I definitely did not want to be a father again, her because she did not want to be a mother again then but she might want to be down the road. Now, imagine she had become pregnant again with another man after our divorce but did not want to be. If Roe was not the law of the land back then she could have been arrested and charged with premeditated murder if she had an abortion.
there's how you view this, never, ever having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy re your own body, and how women who can become pregnant view it.
That's precisely my point. I'm not a woman. I can never get pregnant. So I can never be charged with first degree murder for aborting a pregnancy. Only if I perform it. Which is not a biological imperative. So, how can women who can be ever achieve true political and economic equality with men if the state -- the government -- can force her to give birth or be charged with murder?
"As though that part is, what, completely irrelevant because in 'following the dictates of Reason and Nature', you know everything that can possibly be known about an unwanted pregnancy?"
And, please, don't pretend that when I note my arguments it's a "script", but when you note yours, it's not.
After all, you're the fulminating fanatic objectivist here, not me. I'm always the first to acknowledge that my own thinking is no less rooted existentially in dasein.