Yes, one may put women who have never been pregnant before in the same category as men for that purpose.
... fair enough, at least you're being consistent.
There are, have been, and will be couples in which the husband is struck to the core by knowing that his wife is aborting their child, but does that mean that the emotional impact on him is as strong as the wife who has been carrying the fetus in her?
But that's a different story, since it's not about protecting the rights of the fetus but the feelings of the husband.
Consider, then, men (who never will have that experience) who are dismissive of a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit
Again, until the aspect about the fetus itself is adressed, one could say what she's doing isn't being done just to herself but to the fetus as well.
as though they somehow know better and ought to legislate (see John McCain talking about the "health" of the mother)
From what I've heard of that his stance is that the "health of the mother" argument could be stretched to include almost anything, and while I don't know much about that argument in particular it really should be considered... once you've gotten far enough along in the pregnancy for the fetus to have a consciousness is when it becomes an issue of weighing the rights of the fetus with those of the mother. In any case, why is "health of the mother" looked at differently than "health of the people with diseases curable through ESCR"?
I attribute this to a lack of understanding on their part based purely on the happenstance of their gender. It's not to say that all men are callous about the issue or that all women always understand better.
Fair enough, though I'm more so saying that dismissing moral perspectives from men, or from woman who've never been pregnant, (as opposed to dismissing the moral perspectives on their own merits) doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. And are you saying this as a guy or as a girl?
There is simply a disconnect between those have had the experience and those who haven't; while it's no less acceptable for women who haven't been in the situation to moralise about it, at least there is the possibility that they may know that experience firsthand at some point.
There is also a "possibility" that men may know that experience firsthand at some point; ever heard of male pregnancies?
It also certainly does not affect my greater premise: a complete stranger telling you how to live is absurd.
No doubt, but it's not so much about how one lives in ways that are only affecting themselves as in ways that are affecting others, or in this case, the fetus; until the aspect of the fetus itself is adressed, labels like "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" just don't cut it.
As for why stem cell research isn't argued about as much, that's just the nature of the current national dialogue, over which most of us have no control.
I wasn't even saying ESCR was argued about less so much as that even within ESCR debates there doesn't seem to be the same kind of "you don't understand unless you've experienced it" approach as there is within abortion debates. It's like with people describing anti-abortionists as "anti-choice" or even "woman-hating neanderthals" (I don't recall how I came across that page, I think it was after a series of clicking links from the sources of some Wikipedia article about Elizabeth May, but stuff like that makes me regret being on the same side as them) but I don't hear as much about people describing the anti-ESCR as "anti-cure" or "neanderthals who hate those with diseases and disabilites"...
EDIT: Changed spacing between each quote-and-rebutall pair.
