Re:Too many men suffering in silence, national health report...
by Forgeties79 on Monday November 09, 2026 @05:53PM
(#50433478)
Yes and you keep asserting this as if it is some revelation and not the fundamental debate at hand, which we all know.
The issue isn’t whether or not someone thinks it’s a person, you’re acting like that somehow just makes supporting it somehow incongruous with idk, the argument? I honestly can’t piece it together. But ultimately the issue is that a minority portion of the country has made an ethical decision for the rest of the country instead of letting it be up to individuals, which is (to me) the obvious logical conclusion. And they have argued it must be decided at the state level, which is honestly somewhat arbitrary, except for the fact that that is where they have the best balance of scale and consistent grips on power (total coincidence of course). So, why stop there? They think it shouldn’t be up to the federal government, so why the states? Why not municipalities? Why not individuals? Oh interesting, we’ve hit the bedrock of the actual argument, but it can’t be up to the individual because…I don’t know state’s rights or something.
They are taking away people’s bodily autonomy. You cannot do that without strong reasoning, and being in the minority on an ethics issue does not constitute a good enough reason to me. At the end of the day they can do with their bodies what they want, but that’s not enough. They demand that everybody else adhere to their ethics, as usual. I understand we pass laws based on our general values and ethics and we don’t have 100% consensus, but when it comes to this, what is being taken away is so serious and the grounds for it are so flimsy, especially since it is not established in the slightest that it is a life. It’s their opinion.
You ask us to acknowledge the stakes for them, yet they push forward as if the matter has been clearly decided. Do you tell them the same thing? Do you tell them that they are wrong to force this on people because they need to understand the other half of the argument?
The issue isn’t whether or not someone thinks it’s a person, you’re acting like that somehow just makes supporting it somehow incongruous with idk, the argument? I honestly can’t piece it together. But ultimately the issue is that a minority portion of the country has made an ethical decision for the rest of the country instead of letting it be up to individuals, which is (to me) the obvious logical conclusion. And they have argued it must be decided at the state level, which is honestly somewhat arbitrary, except for the fact that that is where they have the best balance of scale and consistent grips on power (total coincidence of course). So, why stop there? They think it shouldn’t be up to the federal government, so why the states? Why not municipalities? Why not individuals? Oh interesting, we’ve hit the bedrock of the actual argument, but it can’t be up to the individual because…I don’t know state’s rights or something.
They are taking away people’s bodily autonomy. You cannot do that without strong reasoning, and being in the minority on an ethics issue does not constitute a good enough reason to me. At the end of the day they can do with their bodies what they want, but that’s not enough. They demand that everybody else adhere to their ethics, as usual. I understand we pass laws based on our general values and ethics and we don’t have 100% consensus, but when it comes to this, what is being taken away is so serious and the grounds for it are so flimsy, especially since it is not established in the slightest that it is a life. It’s their opinion.
You ask us to acknowledge the stakes for them, yet they push forward as if the matter has been clearly decided. Do you tell them the same thing? Do you tell them that they are wrong to force this on people because they need to understand the other half of the argument?