If the issue is about a woman's right to control their own body, what gives one group of women the right to dictate what another woman does with her body?Fair argument, but at least women have skin in the game in this debate, which men totally do not. Moreso than ANY issue, abortion wholly affects one sex exclusively. That is the crux of my argument here...that MEN have no right to dictate what women should be able to do with their bodies because the issue 100% does not effect men and 100% does affect women.
For the reason given in my previous post, I disagree. It does affect men and women. Not equally, I grant you. But it affects the unborn most of all. Why are women the only ones who can speak for the unborn?
Are you saying you'd be comfortable with a complete ban on abortion, provided that the majority of female parliamentarians supported it?Hypothetically (because an all women vote would never vote against abortion in Australia) I wouldn't like it personally because I know women who have had abortions, both legal and illegal and I think they should have access to them. I don't believe the government should be able to tell someone what they can do with their own bodies. If they did vote to ban, however, I would consider it a matter for women to work out between themselves.
I agree it wouldn’t happen here, but in America, or in particular US States, it could. What if the Democrats went nuts with fiscal irresponsibility, or put up a mentally incapacitated candidate, or went too far with the wokeism, or opened the borders, leaving ordinary people with no choice but to go Republican? They could easily end up with a conservative female majority.
I don’t understand how you can sit there content to not have any representation at all on that issue. Every politician makes laws that will never affect them. It’s their job. You have a right to have a say in that decision, in exactly the same way that all those other strangers (who happened to be women) had a right to have a say in it.
Think of it as a quid pro quo. I have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect you (including laws that don’t affect me). You have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect me (including laws that don’t affect you). If we break that deal, won’t everyone want their own laws? What’s the limiting principle?
Who decides, for example, that the father has no interest? Don’t we have to decide that as a matter of principle before we decide that only women can vote? Who decides that, and how? If men can vote to say that they have an interest, aren’t we back to square one, with everyone having a say?
Can female religious nutters also participate in that vote?Well I would argue that anyone with religious beliefs isn't fit to vote, but that is a separate issue. As we are not debating that, then yes they should be able to. Again, my point is that MEN have no skin in the game here and should keep out of it.
Can white women vote on what black women what to do with their bodies, and vice versa?I don't see any relevance whatsoever to race. If women have choices, a white woman can choose to abort and a black woman can choose not to and vice versa.
But on your logic only the affected group should have a say. Abortions by black women only affect black women, and abortions of white women only affect white women. So why should black women have a say in white womens abortions and vice versa?
Do the female MPS have to have a uterus to vote on the law? Do they have to be of child-bearing age? Do they have to have children? Do they have to have had, or not have had, an abortion?
- No...why on earth would that even remotely be a factor?
- No...again, what does that even matter?
I am not sure the point of nit picking and subdividing all of these categories or women? As long as they are not men...
Because it shows that the principle that “only those affected get a say” can be applied at lower or higher levels of generality, the category of people you choose to give voting rights to is arbitrary and there is no limiting principle. Put another way, why not say “only humans are affected, all humans have a say” or “only fertile women of child bearing age are affected, only they get a say”.
Can female MPs pass a law that says women murdering other women is ok?Does this even need an answer?
How is it different in principle? Only women are affected, only women get a say.
Can men ban other men from performing abortions? Eh, no. If the procedure is legal, why shouldn't men be able to perform it? I totally don't get your angle here at all.
Again, it’s to point out the arbitrariness of your principle.
First, the question is whether it should be made illegal, so the fact that it is not already illegal is irrelevant.
Second, men perform abortions, so why can’t men prevent men from doing that?
What if women voters elected men to represent them? Now this is more interesting. I would say that it should be up to women to be informed about the policy position of the MPs they are electing male OR female. You get the MPs you vote for. I would, however, argue that male MPs should abstain on the floor of the house on this issue.
Leaving all the women who elected them unrepresented. Doesn’t sound fair to me.
Do male parliamentarians have a say in the abortion of male foetuses?I don't get why this even a thought in your head at all. Why would the foetus being male somehow give men a right to vote on the abortion procedure? Why should a man care more about a male foetus vs female? This is about women bodies, not the gender of the foetus.
You said only women are affected. That’s not true. Male and female foetuses are also affected. But you say men can’t vote on things that only affect women, so presumably men can only vote to protect male foetuses.
you will find that there are no good answers. You will see that your argument is incoherent and illogical.Except I provided logical and coherent answers to what were mostly irrelevant questions.
Except that you snipped the bit of my sentence that presented the difficulty for your position. You can’t point to a consistent principle that distinguishes my silly exclusive voting proposals from your exclusive voting proposal. And you can’t point to how your voting proposal addresses the issues with it that I’ve raised. You’ve also not addressed how such a voting system could work in practice.
Earlier in your post you acknowledged that there is a victim in a late term abortion.I acknowledge that the issue is a complex one with no perfect answers in all cases.
But even though you acknowledge this, you blithely decide that because the victims are defenceless and voiceless, and you yourself are not affected, there’s no need or moral obligation on you to act to protect them - even if you were a parliamentarian with responsibility for the law. In fact, you go further and somehow conclude that it would be wrong for you to do so!
You acknowledge that there are victims, but you think the only people who can vote on protections are those in a position to be the potential victimisers. On your logic, only men should be entitled to vote on laws banning men from sexually assaulting women.
You are quite prepared to live with a situation where dogs and cats have greater protection from abuse and neglect under the law than human babies about to be born.
All because you don’t want to carry the moral burden of the decision as to whether those babies deserve protection.
So you can just ignore the defenceless victims?
I also acknowledge that the issue is not one that affects me personally and never will, yet unwanted pregnancies have enormous life consequences for women who have them and not just financial consequences. Therefore I take what I believe is the morally correct position and leave the issue for women to debate and decide for themselves and as I believe women are quite capable of coming to sensible, practical and morally sound conclusions, I leave the decision to them.
Well, you’re saying you’d go a bit further than that. If all you are saying was that you would abstain, fine. But you’re saying all men must abstain - if you were in charge you would prevent men from voting on the issue. You’d prevent me from voting on it.
You want to impose your personal beliefs on others even when such an imposition will never affect you negatively. It is easy for you to moralise and lecture when you will never have to deal with the negative outcomes of what you are calling for.
So do you. You are imposing your personal beliefs on me. More importantly, you are imposing your personal beliefs on the unborn, who will die as a result. A result that you also will never have to deal with.
I’m not moralising any more than you are. You are moralising about womens rights, I’m moralising about the rights of the unborn. We are both moralising about the proper limits for human rights, including the right to life, which affects everyone.
And you are not carrying any moral burden either. You don't even get to choose if if you want an abortion.
But again you gloss over the fact that there is victim here with no choice and no one to speak for them. Your position is that only the potential victimisers can decide what protection their potential victims will get.
Women do not have full freedom to do as they please. Neither do men. You think it would be ok for women to have the unfettered right to kill their unborn child at nine months, even if they have unfettered access to early term abortion.Men do have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. So should women.
No they don’t. Neither men, nor women, have the unfettered right to do as they please if their actions affect someone else. That someone else here includes the unborn.