Women's Rights

[thegreekdog]

We got too many people/politicians who oppose abortion. YET, they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

Not to mention many right wing Republicans feel more inclined to protect the unborn, but don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

And indeed, many opponents of abortion simply close their eyes to the reality of making abortion illegal. It does not stop abortions, it merely makes it more dangerous. Anti-choicers rarely acknowledge the deaths their rhetoric can cause. They like to skirt around it, or bury their heads.

You guys crack me up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8305217.stm

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

Yes it does. There is something in law called "assumption of risk." That theory can be applied to the instant situation.

[Symmetry]

We got too many people/politicians who oppose abortion. YET, they oppose giving out free birth control pills and condoms to prevent pregnancies.

Not to mention many right wing Republicans feel more inclined to protect the unborn, but don't give a rat ass in helping take care of disadvantaged children.

And indeed, many opponents of abortion simply close their eyes to the reality of making abortion illegal. It does not stop abortions, it merely makes it more dangerous. Anti-choicers rarely acknowledge the deaths their rhetoric can cause. They like to skirt around it, or bury their heads.

You guys crack me up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8305217.stm

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

Yes it does. There is something in law called "assumption of risk." That theory can be applied to the instant situation.

Elaborate on how making abortion illegal stops abortion from happening, for those of us who are unfamiliar with how a legal defense can divorce reality and morality from culpability.

[thegreekdog]

Elaborate on how making abortion illegal stops abortion from happening, for those of us who are unfamiliar with how a legal defense can divorce reality and morality from culpability.

Why? Seems pretty clear to me.

Abortion is illegal. A woman meets a man. The woman must choose whether she wants to have unprotected sex with that man. She should know ahead of time that if she chooses to have sex, she could get pregnant. If she chooses not to have sex, she won't get pregnant. If she chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, she could still have an abortion but will put herself at risk for injury or death.

I'm not a woman, but I would choose not to have sex in this scenario.

So while making abortion illegal could result in injury or death for women seeking abortions, I'm not sure that's a good reason to keep abortions legal given that women aren't required to have abortions.

[Symmetry]

Elaborate on how making abortion illegal stops abortion from happening, for those of us who are unfamiliar with how a legal defense can divorce reality and morality from culpability.

Why? Seems pretty clear to me.

Abortion is illegal. A woman meets a man. The woman must choose whether she wants to have unprotected sex with that man. She should know ahead of time that if she chooses to have sex, she could get pregnant. If she chooses not to have sex, she won't get pregnant. If she chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, she could still have an abortion but will put herself at risk for injury or death.

I'm not a woman, but I would choose not to have sex in this scenario.

So while making abortion illegal could result in injury or death for women seeking abortions, I'm not sure that's a good reason to keep abortions legal given that women aren't required to have abortions.

Yup, that's a pretty clear elaboration of how legalisistic arguments can divorce them selves from reality.

[Metsfanmax]

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

I find it incredibly tickling when liberals make the argument that "outlawing abortion doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and having abortions," so therefore we might as well keep abortion legal, but have zero sympathy for the argument that "outlawing guns doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and owning guns," and insist that we should make owning a gun illegal.

[PLAYER57832]

Elaborate on how making abortion illegal stops abortion from happening, for those of us who are unfamiliar with how a legal defense can divorce reality and morality from culpability.

Why? Seems pretty clear to me.

Abortion is illegal. A woman meets a man. The woman must choose whether she wants to have unprotected sex with that man. She should know ahead of time that if she chooses to have sex, she could get pregnant. If she chooses not to have sex, she won't get pregnant. If she chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, she could still have an abortion but will put herself at risk for injury or death.

I'm not a woman, but I would choose not to have sex in this scenario.

So while making abortion illegal could result in injury or death for women seeking abortions, I'm not sure that's a good reason to keep abortions legal given that women aren't required to have abortions.

Abortion has existed long before it was legal, long before most men were even truly aware it existed. Also, there is just no such thing as 100% protected sex. All methods fail, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes its incompetent use, but it can also be metabolic issues, manufacture failure, etc, etc.

Per the "choice to have sex" bit -- that is a whole other discussion. Related, yes, but involves talking about roles of women, sex in society. As a minimum, sex is about much more than just whether to have a child or not. (a woman may not want to have sex, but can find it difficult to withstand the pressure of her partner).

[Symmetry]

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

I find it incredibly tickling when liberals make the argument that "outlawing abortion doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and having abortions," so therefore we might as well keep abortion legal, but have zero sympathy for the argument that "outlawing guns doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and owning guns," and insist that we should make owning a gun illegal.

Making abortion illegal is a deeply fanatical position that few can hold on to without coning across as nuts. Almost everyone has to acknowledge that abortion should be legal.

[PLAYER57832]

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

I find it incredibly tickling when liberals make the argument that "outlawing abortion doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and having abortions," so therefore we might as well keep abortion legal, but have zero sympathy for the argument that "outlawing guns doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and owning guns," and insist that we should make owning a gun illegal.

Not to wade into this argument itself, but most liberals are about limiting guns or limiting some guns specifically, not making them totally illegal.

Beyond that.. carry on.

[Metsfanmax]

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

I find it incredibly tickling when liberals make the argument that "outlawing abortion doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and having abortions," so therefore we might as well keep abortion legal, but have zero sympathy for the argument that "outlawing guns doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and owning guns," and insist that we should make owning a gun illegal.

Making abortion illegal is a deeply fanatical position that few can hold on to without coning across as nuts. Almost everyone has to acknowledge that abortion should be legal.

"Making guns illegal is a deeply fanatical position that few can hold on to without coming across as nuts. Almost everyone has to acknowledge that guns should be legal."

This is a position held by many Americans.

Not to wade into this argument itself, but most liberals are about limiting guns or limiting some guns specifically, not making them totally illegal.

In our country, maybe, though I know a lot of liberals here who would ban all civilian gun ownership if they could. But remember that Symmetry is not from the US, and they have a different perspective on gun ownership where he lives.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps I'm just British, or perhaps I'm just not nuts, but this "guns vs abortion" debate seems a little like a distraction designed to dismiss non-US points of view. Do you consider this a local issue?

[Metsfanmax]

Perhaps I'm just British, or perhaps I'm just not nuts, but this "guns vs abortion" debate seems a little like a distraction designed to dismiss non-US points of view. Do you consider this a local issue?

No. I was merely remarking on the inanity of that particular argument you made. It has nothing to do with your actual position -- you think abortions should be legal for independent reasons -- so it just comes off as a really weak argument. It's conceding that you're never going to convince them that your side is correct (and I don't think you ever will, by calling them fanatical), and basically just calling them assholes for supporting back alley abortions. Which obviously they don't support.

So that's why I brought up the guns issue -- not because there's any similarity between the actual content of these topics, but because there's a lot of similarity in how people debate these topics. Consider what your mental thought process would be if someone made the argument to you "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Whatever goes through your mind when you think about this argument, is analogous to what goes through a pro-life person's mind when they consider your argument about illegal abortions. Are you receptive to the guns argument? If not, they probably aren't receptive to the abortion argument.

Now, if you were actually trying to make effective arguments, this line of reasoning might be a useful tool for you to use. But when you're calling them fanatics then they're not going to actually consider your point.

[PLAYER57832]

So that's why I brought up the guns issue -- not because there's any similarity between the actual content of these topics, but because there's a lot of similarity in how people debate these topics. .

I think assuming that all debate and argument is about trying to convince the other person of your view is a mistake. I debate, in large part, because it is the quickest and most thorough way to find other people's opinions on subjects. Also, it is just plain a decent mental exercise. I enjoy the challenge of refining my thoughts/reasons/arguments. Its not so much about convincing the other person we are correct and more about convincing the other person our arguments are actually valid and worth considering.

This is, by-the-way, why the "pfff... you are just wrong and silly to say such a thing" type of "debating" is so destructive. It destroys utterly the good that comes from such exchanges and reduces the debates into little more than a series of name-calling attacks. No one really wins by that, it only shows immaturity. (note.. different from saying "you keep repeating","your facts are in error [and here is why]", etc.)

[PLAYER57832]

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

I find it incredibly tickling when liberals make the argument that "outlawing abortion doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and having abortions," so therefore we might as well keep abortion legal, but have zero sympathy for the argument that "outlawing guns doesn't prevent people from breaking the law and owning guns," and insist that we should make owning a gun illegal.

Making abortion illegal is a deeply fanatical position that few can hold on to without coning across as nuts. Almost everyone has to acknowledge that abortion should be legal.

"Making guns illegal is a deeply fanatical position that few can hold on to without coming across as nuts. Almost everyone has to acknowledge that guns should be legal."

This is a position held by many Americans.

Not to wade into this argument itself, but most liberals are about limiting guns or limiting some guns specifically, not making them totally illegal.

In our country, maybe, though I know a lot of liberals here who would ban all civilian gun ownership if they could. But remember that Symmetry is not from the US, and they have a different perspective on gun ownership where he lives.

Not really. In the UK, they do limit private gun ownership severely, but people can still have hunting rifles, etc.

A more fundamental issue with what you said, though, is that you make a basic error when you equate guns with intent to kill, not defend. My point was that even the most liberal don't really say that.

In the case of abortion, the issue is really is that many people consider it killing to abort even very early stage pregnancies.

A more legitimate comparison would be the debate over birth control. In that case, only a few consider taking birth control to be equivalent to killing, or almost equally wrong. That is more akin to the position of "all guns are bad" than the arguments over abortion.

The argument over abortion is more akin to "when should it be allowed" and the "when should guns be allowed argument". Maybe that is really what you intended? Even so, there is a big legal distinction in that abortion is not considered a fundamental legal right, it is allowed based on a judicial determination. The right to bear arms is part of our constitution. Even if you wish to assert the rarely stated position that the second amendment referred just to states, not individuals, there is still much more legal ground for guns than abortions.

Also somewhat ironic, the idea that this is a private decision is, in part, based on the recognition that pregnancy is fundamentally hazardous. We tend to forget that fact, that even beyond the high (and still quite high) miscarriage rate, many, many women and children died in childbirth. We have a fundamental concept that while giving one's life for another is noble, and to some extent expected of women for their children, it is not something others can demand of anyone. Again, there is a bit of grey area when it comes to mothers because we tend to idolize the idea that a women's primary purpose is to have and support her children. In the past, there was little choice, because women wanting an abortion would be subjected to conditions more dangerous than having their children. Even so, the stigma of having an unwed birth or of giving up a child born into marriage (stigma and male attitudes both) was so great that many women went ahead and had illegal abortions.

This equation only changed because of medical science, and the invention of the pill which meant that more women got pregnant without wanting to have children. A pregnancy is no longer just a "black box", where we don't really know if a child will live or not. Now, we more and more do know. And, the age at which we know we can pretty well ensure a child will live keeps growing. On the other side, though, come the question of disabilities (and I mean very serious stuff). In many cases, even the most faithful of individuals can find themselves asking when life is really not life that god intends.

[tzor]

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous. Those who want to make it illegal therefore are either burying there heads and ignoring that, or choosing to punish desperate people.

The problem with that statement is that "Making abortion illegal" is a blanket statement. Let's consider a non fatal example: making charging of interest for the lending of money illegal. Definitely didn't work in the Medieval period. On the other hand, just because it's a bad idea, making excessive interest rates illegal or the forced acceptance of terms strongly unfavorable to the borrower (predatory lending) can be made illegal without a serious underground predatory lending ring forming in spite of efforts to close it down.

I don't want to make abortion "illegal." I do want to see all the necessary regulations in place to make it safe. I do want to see all possible alternatives promoted in order to give people real choice. Once these are in place, then we can talk about requiring major reasons to perform such operations once the unborn child is fully capable of feeling the horrible pain caused by such procedures. (Aside from the rights to due process, drawing and quartering people - basically what most procedures like D&C would do - would be considered unconstitutional because of its cruelty and should be banned on any pain capable not yet born person.)

[tzor]

Abortion has existed long before it was legal, long before most men were even truly aware it existed.

Yes abortion has existed long before it was "legal." The question is why?

This was a major problem for 19th century feminists, by the way, one of the reasons why Susan B Anthony was generally against abortions. They were imposed, for the most part by men. It wasn't the women, for the most part who were desperately seeking sex, it was the men. It was men who were getting women pregnant. It was men who were faced with an admission of impropriety who in turn forced women to have those abortions. Just getting pregnant was life threatening back then, both in terms of complications of birth and complications of surgical procedures in general.

The "Sexual Revolution" was stupid and dumb. Why you have to be drugged out of your mind to ... wait they were ... never mind. Anyway it's over. The redux of the revolution, the "Hookup Culture" has also died. Now males are in general fear in college that they might be accused of something. The only exceptions to this are those areas where the all powerful progressive state has manipulated the people into a state of dependency, and the combined pressure of allowing a non monogamous sexual atmosphere and a eugenic approach to reducing poverty continues to promote abortion as the only viable option for the poor and lower classes.

[PLAYER57832]

Abortion has existed long before it was legal, long before most men were even truly aware it existed.

Yes abortion has existed long before it was "legal." The question is why?

This was a major problem for 19th century feminists, by the way, one of the reasons why Susan B Anthony was generally against abortions. They were imposed, for the most part by men. It wasn't the women, for the most part who were desperately seeking sex, it was the men. It was men who were getting women pregnant. It was men who were faced with an admission of impropriety who in turn forced women to have those abortions. Just getting pregnant was life threatening back then, both in terms of complications of birth and complications of surgical procedures in general.

You have it slightly backwards. Men demanded the sex. Women were the ones left to deal with it and who therefore sought out the abortions, oftentimes without their men even knowing.

You persist in thinking women are apparently ignorant. Please stop. Women are not idiots, are not the "unknowing victims" needing the "protection" of men in society. We are fully and 100% capable of making very, very difficult decisions. Despite the male arrogance that predominates, particularly in this situation, but also in many other areas, women historically are the ones who really make the most difficult decisions, who wind up dealing with the realities of the messes that men create -- be it through sexual demands, power dominance or political arrogance.

The "Sexual Revolution" was stupid and dumb. Why you have to be drugged out of your mind to ... wait they were ... never mind. Anyway it's over.

Nice try, but no. However, that is a whole other discussion.
Your basic error is that you assume sex is mostly something men demand from women who are mostly too naive to "get" that. (Actually, that you think this involves a whole series of other errors, but anyway(

The redux of the revolution, the "Hookup Culture" has also died. Now males are in general fear in college that they might be accused of something. The only exceptions to this are those areas where the all powerful progressive state has manipulated the people into a state of dependency, and the combined pressure of allowing a non monogamous sexual atmosphere and a eugenic approach to reducing poverty continues to promote abortion as the only viable option for the poor and lower classes.

Not even close, tzor, not even close. The only part you have correct is that now more men are afraid of being accused of "something".. though I will clarify the "something" is sexual abuse, rape and sexual harassment. and yes, women are quite aware of the ramifications, be it those who are now breathing a tad more relief because they don't have to put up with so much cr*p or the women who are themselves the abusers, who trick or otherwise use sex/intimidation to gain their power.

[tzor]

You have it slightly backwards. Men demanded the sex. Women were the ones left to deal with it and who therefore sought out the abortions, oftentimes without their men even knowing.

source

Second, they asserted that abortion was just another tool by which women were exploited. While they did not exonerate women from the crime, leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Matilda Gage charged that abortion was a "degradation of women" and that "most of the responsibility for this crime lies at the door of the male sex" who beg, cajole, and even force women to have abortion.[10]

9. Mary Krane Derr, "Man's Inhumanity to Woman Makes Countless Infants Die: The Early Feminist Case Against Abortion" (Kansas City, MO: Feminists for Life, 1991).

10. Ibid., 10.

With equal perception, Alice Paul, the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923) stated that "abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women," the escape route men use to avoid responsibility for their own acts.[11] These visionaries would not have been shocked by the results of a 1984 study which found that 60 percent of women seeking abortion feel "forced" to do so by others.[12]

11. Frederica Mathewes-Green, "Suffragists at the Abortion March," "Sisterlife," Spring 1992, 12(2):1,5.

12. David Reardon, "Aborted Women, Silent No More" (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 11.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps I'm just British, or perhaps I'm just not nuts, but this "guns vs abortion" debate seems a little like a distraction designed to dismiss non-US points of view. Do you consider this a local issue?

No. I was merely remarking on the inanity of that particular argument you made. It has nothing to do with your actual position -- you think abortions should be legal for independent reasons -- so it just comes off as a really weak argument. It's conceding that you're never going to convince them that your side is correct (and I don't think you ever will, by calling them fanatical), and basically just calling them assholes for supporting back alley abortions. Which obviously they don't support.

So that's why I brought up the guns issue -- not because there's any similarity between the actual content of these topics, but because there's a lot of similarity in how people debate these topics. Consider what your mental thought process would be if someone made the argument to you "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Whatever goes through your mind when you think about this argument, is analogous to what goes through a pro-life person's mind when they consider your argument about illegal abortions. Are you receptive to the guns argument? If not, they probably aren't receptive to the abortion argument.

Now, if you were actually trying to make effective arguments, this line of reasoning might be a useful tool for you to use. But when you're calling them fanatics then they're not going to actually consider your point.

So, you posted an inane argument? I see no reason to derail this topic.

If your argument is, at its source, a plea for me to be more pleasant, I will try.

[PLAYER57832]

You have it slightly backwards. Men demanded the sex. Women were the ones left to deal with it and who therefore sought out the abortions, oftentimes without their men even knowing.

source

No dice.

No source you present is providing any real evidence here. All you are showing is that this is and has been a predominant opinion for years and that many still hold to such backwards ideas.

The idea that women lack the ability to make these decisions is just fundamentally flawed, period. Your citing "sources" to back up your ideas is only slightly less objectionable and inane than citing 17th century sources for how slavery is good for black folks... seriously tzor, I expect much better.
Educate yourself, PLEASE!!!


Despite this fiction, the true reality is that it is not men, but women who, in society wind up having to face and make the most difficult decisions on earth. It is women, not men, who bear children. It was women, not men who often did a lot of the practical nursing and "doctoring", even while being utterly dismissed by male "doctors" and alchemists. In many societies historically, men were not even fully permitted into birthing chambers, into the realm of women. Though you don't find it in a lot of standard texts and public written documents (documents largely by and for men, you must recognize), a big reason for many of these prohibitions is the fact that women often HAD to deal with things like kids with extra legs, organs protruding, conjoined twins and other issues. And, in many cases women had to face and deal with the repercussions of having the female children when their men wanted males. In patriarchal societies, there were often rules stating that the men had the right to kill infants they did not want, but the reality is that women, knowing the heart of their men, would often make sure the outcome was what he wanted from the outset. THAT is what male dominance really means, not that men know better, but that they leave women to deal with the messes while sitting and pretending that their men are truly in charge and making the "real" decisions.

No Tzor, in this you are just wrong, and sorry, but in this case, I am as much or more of an expert (truly) than any of those sources you can cite. If you care to challenge me on this, you will have to do a LOT better than come up with a few opinion posts. Try following all of them back to the documented historical evidence, AND take care to make sure you understand that there are often parallel "histories"-- the history of men and the history of women. They merge, they evolve together, but the records of women and the records of men are often not at all the same.

[thegreekdog]

Elaborate on how making abortion illegal stops abortion from happening, for those of us who are unfamiliar with how a legal defense can divorce reality and morality from culpability.

Why? Seems pretty clear to me.

Abortion is illegal. A woman meets a man. The woman must choose whether she wants to have unprotected sex with that man. She should know ahead of time that if she chooses to have sex, she could get pregnant. If she chooses not to have sex, she won't get pregnant. If she chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, she could still have an abortion but will put herself at risk for injury or death.

I'm not a woman, but I would choose not to have sex in this scenario.

So while making abortion illegal could result in injury or death for women seeking abortions, I'm not sure that's a good reason to keep abortions legal given that women aren't required to have abortions.

Yup, that's a pretty clear elaboration of how legalisistic arguments can divorce them selves from reality.

What reality are you referring to? That women can't help but have unprotected sex with men or that when women do have unprotected sex with men and get pregnant, there is nothing for them to do but have illegal abortions resulting in injury or death?

[Symmetry]

Elaborate on how making abortion illegal stops abortion from happening, for those of us who are unfamiliar with how a legal defense can divorce reality and morality from culpability.

Why? Seems pretty clear to me.

Abortion is illegal. A woman meets a man. The woman must choose whether she wants to have unprotected sex with that man. She should know ahead of time that if she chooses to have sex, she could get pregnant. If she chooses not to have sex, she won't get pregnant. If she chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, she could still have an abortion but will put herself at risk for injury or death.

I'm not a woman, but I would choose not to have sex in this scenario.

So while making abortion illegal could result in injury or death for women seeking abortions, I'm not sure that's a good reason to keep abortions legal given that women aren't required to have abortions.

Yup, that's a pretty clear elaboration of how legalisistic arguments can divorce them selves from reality.

What reality are you referring to? That women can't help but have unprotected sex with men or that when women do have unprotected sex with men and get pregnant, there is nothing for them to do but have illegal abortions resulting in injury or death?

Are you trying to suggest that rape doesn't exist? I don't get your point.

[tzor]

No source you present is providing any real evidence here. All you are showing is that this is and has been a predominant opinion for years and that many still hold to such backwards ideas.

What is this? Do what I say and not what I do? Nothing you have claimed has been backed up by any references. [CITATION NEEDED] on all of your arguments. I'm working my ass off trying to get good citations that people can actually READ and all you can do it nit pick?

The idea that women lack the ability to make these decisions is just fundamentally flawed, period. Your citing "sources" to back up your ideas is only slightly less objectionable and inane than citing 17th century sources for how slavery is good for black folks... seriously tzor, I expect much better.

What in hell are you going on about? I mentioned that there were 19th century feminists who argued that men were forcing abortions on women. I've never argued that women are fundamentally flawed. These were women who had very little choices in the entire matter throughout the entire process.

Oh and by the way, it's 19th century sources, not 17th century sources. I do recommend you get a new pair of glasses; your reading is fundamentally flawed.

Educate yourself, PLEASE!!!

[CITATION NEEDED]

It was women, not men who often did a lot of the practical nursing and "doctoring", even while being utterly dismissed by male "doctors" and alchemists.

Oh sigh, I'll just double down on your statement. It was those male doctors who wanted abortion illegal in the first place because of the women who were threatening their monopoly.

Though you don't find it in a lot of standard texts and public written documents (documents largely by and for men, you must recognize), a big reason for many of these prohibitions is the fact that women often HAD to deal with things like kids with extra legs, organs protruding, conjoined twins and other issues. And, in many cases women had to face and deal with the repercussions of having the female children when their men wanted males.

[CITATION NEEDED]

And please, tell me how these things, mostly not detectable until AFTER BIRTH, had anything to do with abortion policies towards the end of the coal powered industrial era in the 19th century.

Yes I know you hate what you think is the medieval era. GET OVER IT.

No Tzor, in this you are just wrong, and sorry, but in this case, I am as much or more of an expert (truly) than any of those sources you can cite.

You are? Well how in hell am I to know? You haven't cited one reliable source for any of your claims. Don't give me the "I am the expert" nonsense. PROVE IT. You spout the same babble without anything to back it up and say "I am an expert." Well then I expect you to have an entire library at your disposal.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Try following all of them back to the documented historical evidence,

[CITATION NEEDED]

AND take care to make sure you understand that there are often parallel "histories"-- the history of men and the history of women.

[CITATION NEEDED]

[Bernie Sanders]

Look at all the guys here trying to convince everyone here that they know what's best for women. I'm sure lot's of you, if were turned into 18 year old hotties [girls] you would fight the government and men, on what you would consider your rights are with your own body.



Keep government away and out of my daughter's uterus!

[tzor]

I certainly don't claim I know what's "best for women." That's like saying that a non auto-mechanic can fine tune a Maserati, just because he can fiddle around with his single stroke lawnmower engine. And yes, I do think that is a fitting example between men and women from the point of view of complex hormonal interactions which, technically speaking, is the actual heart of sexuality.

And from what I have seen so far, I'm pretty sure that a century from now, what we call common knowledge would be looked upon as primitive and barbaric.

[thegreekdog]

Elaborate on how making abortion illegal stops abortion from happening, for those of us who are unfamiliar with how a legal defense can divorce reality and morality from culpability.

Why? Seems pretty clear to me.

Abortion is illegal. A woman meets a man. The woman must choose whether she wants to have unprotected sex with that man. She should know ahead of time that if she chooses to have sex, she could get pregnant. If she chooses not to have sex, she won't get pregnant. If she chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, she could still have an abortion but will put herself at risk for injury or death.

I'm not a woman, but I would choose not to have sex in this scenario.

So while making abortion illegal could result in injury or death for women seeking abortions, I'm not sure that's a good reason to keep abortions legal given that women aren't required to have abortions.

Yup, that's a pretty clear elaboration of how legalisistic arguments can divorce them selves from reality.

What reality are you referring to? That women can't help but have unprotected sex with men or that when women do have unprotected sex with men and get pregnant, there is nothing for them to do but have illegal abortions resulting in injury or death?

Are you trying to suggest that rape doesn't exist? I don't get your point.

You get my point, you're just avoiding it because you have no response to it (unless of course, as we some suspect, you are not able to grasp the language of your homeland). So, like in other threads, I'm not going to respond to your question until you respond to mine.