Official 2012 US Election thread

Originally Posted by Great White North

The "war on women", when we cut out all the sensationalist bull♥♥♥♥ and political spin, fundamentally revolves around the question of what defines personhood, when it is bestowed, and what sort of rights that should entail.

Now. I'm going to sign off for a while. And yeah, since Liah will likely read this sooner or later: I'm in a mood to shove my fist in someone's ass.

See you SDers around.

Yeah, maybe I'd believe that if the people pushing to ban abortion weren't CultureWarriors™ who also push abstinence-only sex education. Which has been shown on multiple occasions to not only be completely ineffective at actually preventing sexual activity, but also exacerbates infection rates of STDs. If they really cared about matters of personhood, they'd be advocating birth control that would prevent conception in the first place. No conception, no fetus, no question on when it becomes a person and not a blob of flesh. That fact that condoms also help prevent infections is a bonus. But they don't.

Originally Posted by Darth Yoshi

Yeah, maybe I'd believe that if the people pushing to ban abortion weren't CultureWarriors™ who also push abstinence-only sex education. Which has been shown on multiple occasions to not only be completely ineffective at actually preventing sexual activity, but also exacerbates infection rates of STDs. If they really cared about matters of personhood, they'd be advocating birth control that would prevent conception in the first place. No conception, no fetus, no question on when it becomes a person and not a blob of flesh. That fact that condoms also help prevent infections is a bonus. But they don't.

Stereotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This characterization is neither true nor fair, and you know it.

Or maybe people who are pro-life see it as a philosophical and moral question regarding whether it's okay to kill a person.

Antagonizing pro-lifers as a bunch of people who hate women and wish to restrict freedom isn't going to garner us any support (I myself am pro-choice).

I realize that this thread is about the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election and not abortion, however, I believe that only women can genuinely argue a position of either pro-choice or pro-life because they are the ones who will be giving birth to a baby.

Originally Posted by A_LINK_IN_TIME

I realize that this thread is about the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election and not abortion, however, I believe that only women can genuinely argue a position of either pro-choice or pro-life because they are the ones who will be giving birth to a baby.

Normally, in cases where the only individuals affected is the one concerned, I would agree with you.

However, in the case of abortion a fetus constitutes a potential victim, and as such the question of what defines a person must be asked. This concerns society as a whole because people have rights, and if a fetus is a person steps to define and protect those rights must be taken, regardless of if the fetus is dependent on another person.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Stereotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This characterization is neither true nor fair, and you know it.

Are you claiming that anyone who isn't a CultureWarrior would ever seriously advocate abstinence only sex ed, when practically every reputable study of its effectiveness has concluded that, at best, it simply doesn't work and at worst, is making the problem worse?

Or perhaps you're saying that it isn't true that Tea Party CultureWarriors oppose abortion? That since the last midterm elections there hasn't been an increase in anti-abortion legislation, including an attempt to limit what counts as rape for the purposes of abortion? That there haven't been attempts as well to replace comprehensive sex ed with abstinence only programs, which rely on fear-mongering and shaming rather than medically accurate facts?

Or perhaps your objection is to my doubt that CultureWarriors really care about personhood, when many spout that "life begins at conception" nonsense? It is true that a fertilized embryo is a genetically distinct entity from its parents, but that a is meaningless definition, because in all the ways that matter, an embryo is not a person. It doesn't think, it doesn't breathe, it doesn't have any of the traits typically associated with "people." Even fetuses don't have exhibit those traits for some time into the pregnancy. Certainly not before the end of the first trimester.

Or perhaps you object to the use of "CultureWarriors" entirely, when Tea Party legislators are statistically white evangelicals, the demographic that adopted the term "culture warrior" to begin with?

It doesn't think,

Neither do children under the age of a year or so.

it doesn't breathe,

There are numerous individuals who need to rely on respirators to breathe for them.

These are poor quantifies for personhood because they exclude individuals that we KNOW are people.

it doesn't have any of the traits typically associated with "people."

And excepting the above, what are these traits? Ability to respond to the environment? Cause they do THAT at the moment of conception. A brain? A heart? A fully formed body? All of these exist prior to birth.

Ultimately, your post in a classic example of why we can't have rational discussions about any social issue in the West. One side characterizes the other as radical baby killers and in return are painted as reactionary sexist supremacists. Until people are willing to come to the table and attempt to either come to a consensus, agree to disagree, or fall into an all-or-nothing battle having tried something else, this debate is largely pointless and inflammatory.