Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Abortion?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic
The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#31

Posted 22 November 2005 - 11:51 PM

QUOTE (Alkaline Trio @ Nov 22 2005, 23:04)
Although there is no established religion in America, it is subtley Christianity that we Americans follow without even realizing it. I bet you that most of the U.S. Government is Christian. For example, Hindus in India look at the cow as a holy, sacred animal. Yet Americans torture, kill, mutilize, and eat cows. So India looks at us with disgust, yet we see it as something perfectly normal. And Americans look at Asian cultures in disgust because they eat seaweed, raw fish, and in rare cases, dogs. Yet to them it's perfectly natural and acceptable, but to Americans we consider it "barbaric". Now relating it to abortion, to American, it's natural to not accept abortion due to Christian dominance. However, we fail to attempt understanding the other sides' point of view (which Christianity lacks).

I do not intend to attack Christians. I am just saying that whatever belief is dominant in America, then the public will believe and side with it.

I for one, love sushi (raw fish), seaweed, and dog meat. I find them all delicious, not barbaric. And indians need to lose that crush on cows, I know indian dudes who have denounced hinduism because they love cow so much now. So, Indians need to learn to brutally slaughter and eat cows and Americans need to learn to do the same to dogs. Yummy.

But I am really lovin' mortukai's posts here, its really wonderful stuff and from my point of view they are the most eloquent, thought out responses that this topic has ever seen. It really speaks to me about what it means to be human. Incidentally, I would like to further discuss the adoption situation as a solution to abortion. I think a large problem with our ineffective adoption system is the beurocracy that wraps it in red tape.

Reincarnated
  • Reincarnated

    feels good man

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2004

#32

Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:16 AM

Any fool with a dick can make a baby. It takes a real man to raise one. IMO, the reality of it is, woman should have to right to decide to have an abortion if the trimemester is really early. Once the child is into the final trimemesters, then they must accept that they have a child and they have to follow up on it. Now, if a woman was raped, and became pregnant, they have the decision whether they want to have the child or not? That is the question.

QUOTE (Eviscero)
The question Mortukai is asking is, if women should have the right to abort their children, why then, should business owners not have the right to take whatever money given to them, and then drop the business? Because you gave them 50,000, you should have some say. As investors do...


Because children are people. People are humans. Thats where the line is drawn imo. This goes for all humans - regardless of whether they have a mind or not.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#33

Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:54 AM

Err, what? Can anyone translate that?

@the_Man; I think a lot of it has to be wrapped in red tape because there have been far too many incidents of abusive foster parents - so much so that we need to really have a lot of intensive background checks and investigations to credit potential parents' credibility.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#34

Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:55 AM

QUOTE (Alkaline Trio @ Nov 22 2005, 18:04)
Although there is no established religion in America, it is subtley Christianity that we Americans follow without even realizing it. I bet you that most of the U.S. Government is Christian. For example, Hindus in India look at the cow as a holy, sacred animal. Yet Americans torture, kill, mutilize, and eat cows. So India looks at us with disgust, yet we see it as something perfectly normal. And Americans look at Asian cultures in disgust because they eat seaweed, raw fish, and in rare cases, dogs. Yet to them it's perfectly natural and acceptable, but to Americans we consider it "barbaric". Now relating it to abortion, to American, it's natural to not accept abortion due to Christian dominance. However, we fail to attempt understanding the other sides' point of view (which Christianity lacks).

I do not intend to attack Christians. I am just saying that whatever belief is dominant in America, then the public will believe and side with it.

You do know that abortion is legal here, even though Christianity preaches respect for all life, and most Christian denominations are pro-life?

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#35

Posted 23 November 2005 - 01:13 AM

I'm still not getting your investing analogiy. No one but the woman is investing in the baby, especially in a case of rape... thus why is it important what she does? Explain that please.

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#36

Posted 23 November 2005 - 01:47 AM

Mort (and to a lesser degree, Evisc..) your analogy, well, it isn't one. Unless of course you paid a woman (such as a surrogate mother) said $50K to incubate your offspring, in which case, yea, she'd be contractually bound to deliver the product and forfeit rights of parenting. Or, I suppose if a man were really worried about it, they could ask a woman to sign/verbally agree to a contract promising not to have an abortion before sex. Otherwise, your meager donation of time and readily available sperm cells doesn't really ammount to very much in the process of reproduction.

To take Evisc's extrapolation of your analogy one step further, that would be like the bloody janitor expecting fiscal compensation from a failed corporate employer at or exceeding the level of a venture capital group that funded its creation. So, while it may take two to tango, your minimal investment into the product line places you in no position to assert control over the assembly facilities. Be it by force of law or otherwise.

But, to answer your hastily constructed attempt at a barbed question in a direct manner: If my mother wished to have an "abortion" now, 29 years later, for whatever reason, I would have no problem whatsoever with that being legal. Full stop.

Oh, and if my oven did manage to become self-aware, and decided to eat my cake, more power to it. I for one welcome our sentient appliance overlords.

jheath
  • jheath

    Nameless Redshirt

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2005

#37

Posted 23 November 2005 - 01:54 AM

Odd, isn't it? There is no lack of people who believe that life has value intrinsically, no matter what the actual value of its contents, and would gladly use that arbitrary assessment to force their preferred courses of action on all others. At the same time many of those same people have no issues with killing animals for food. If one defines a human based on its genes, as most of these people do, then what makes them so arbitrarily devalue animal life, when the genetic variation between us and them is only a few percent?

Perhaps we're missing something here. Perhaps a human is defined by more than just the DNA residing in his cells; maybe he is instead defined by (and valuable for) the thoughts, emotions, memories, and character residing in his mind. You could take away almost anything from a human, cripple and deform is body to the point of non-recognition, but so long as he has his mind he has the one thing that creates meaning and value in the universe. It is the brilliant and unprecedented power of our minds that so separate us from the animals, that makes humanity and human life worth preserving, that defines the very essence of what it is to be human. Without it, we would be no more than clusters of cells, alive without purpose.

People seem to accept this idea easily when it comes to the rest of the life on earth. We frequently kill disease-causing microbes with little remorse by washing our hands with soap, knowing full well that a microbe's life is worth less than the humans it could infect. Likewise most would feel awful about senselessly maiming or killing a dog, and yet pick flowers and cut grass without compunction, knowing that the one has a brain capable of feeling pain and distress, while the other does not. I hardly believe anyone checks the genetic code to see how similar dogs are to humans before assessing their value. Yet when it comes to undeveloped embryos or brain-dead accident victims, so many decide, as Mortukai seems to have decided, that the only thing that defines a human is the chromosomal contents of their cells.


Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#38

Posted 23 November 2005 - 02:19 AM

QUOTE
No one but the woman is investing in the baby, especially in a case of rape... thus why is it important what she does? Explain that please.

Ok, obviously you are having trouble dealing with the logic of the situation, so let's make this personal so you can understand it.

Imagine that you are 22, and you've found the love of your life. He's pretty much everything you've ever wanted in a man.

I just checked your profile and realised it's your 17th birthday today. Happy birthday!

You get married, and have wild monkey sex every night. Then after a few months, you get a little worried that you're not pregnant yet. Your mother keeps asking you when you're going to make her a grandma, and you know from speaking with him that your husband also really wants a child with you. So after a year of trying, you both decide to get tested for fertillity. At first, your husband is really worried that he's shooting blanks, and if you were honest you'd admit that you think he might be.

But then the results come back, and you find out that he is a perfectly fit sperm machine. Instead, you find out that you have a deformity with your uterus which means that fertilized eggs can't embed themselves in you. Your husband and you have probably made several babies, but they've all been flushed down the toilet without either of you the wiser. Because of some random genetic mishap, you can never carry a baby to term. Technically, you're in the exact same position as a man. Because of some random genetic occurance of him being a man and not a woman, he is incapable of carrying a baby to term.

But, thanks to medical technology, the doctors tell you that they can take one of your eggs, some of your husband's sperm, and grow the baby in a surrogate mother. It's irrelevant to the analogy whether you would actually choose to do this, or die without children, so let's assume that after a lot of humming and hawing and crying and talking with your husband and your family, that you eventually decide to go ahead and have your baby carried to term in a surrogate mother.

The doctor's perform the procedure, and after a little bit of hoping for the best, they tell you that it has worked, and you can expect a baby girl in 9 months.

Then, 2 months in, the surrogate mother decides that she doesn't want to do it anymore, so she aborts your baby. She tells you about it beforehand, of course, but she politely tells you that seeing as how it's her body, you have no say in what she does. It doesn't matter that it's YOUR baby, and your concerns and desires to have that baby don't matter. All that matters is that being pregnant is inconveniencing her, so she's going to kill your baby.

Of course, you'd be perfectly fine with all this, wouldn't you? After all, you didn't invest anything into that baby. Only she did. Isn't that right?

_________


What I'm trying to do here is show you that reproduction does not begin with sex and end with birth. It begins long before sex, and ends when you die. Your whole life is spent investing into your ability to attract the best men. Men spend their whole lives investing in their ability to attract the best women. Women keep up with fashion, spend endless hours ensuring they look perfect and different, so that they can stand out from the other girls and be prettier than them, so that guys will notice them. They learn how to play coy, give him "the signs", they stress endlessly when he doesn't "get" their signs, they gossip about who is doing what with who and when so that they can move higher in the social heirachy by being more "in the know". They take every oppurtunity to put down their competition any way they can. And they do all this, every day of their lives, so that they can get the best men. When they have that really hot confident guy approach them in the club, it's all paid off. Now they sit back and judge him on his performance. But that's cool, because he's been preparing for this all his life too. He works out so that he's masculine and strong, he stands tall and with ease, he's spent at least some time grooming himself to stand out from the guys around him, he's spent years teasing his friends and fighting them to establish his rank in the social pecking order and becoming a "man's man". He's saved money from his job to afford expensive clothes and a car and whatever other shiny expensive things he is interested in to demonstrate his social fitness. He's invested time and energy into maybe art, or playing a musical instrument, or writing novels, so that he can demonstrate his mental talents and differentiate himself from the other guys. Maybe he's even involved in some regular sporting activity, like rock-climbing, soccer, or football, so that he can demonstrate his physical prowess over other males. And when he's that confident hot guy in the club, it'll all pay off for him, because one of the hot girls will decide unconsciously that she wants his baby.

Life is our investment. A baby is our purpose. A person who dies without a child is a genetic dead end. No-one here alive today is decended from anyone who died without children. Sex is merely how we attempt to make our investment pay off. You might think that we humans have sex for the sheer pleasure of it, but that only shows ignorance of reality. The whole reason that sex is pleasurable at all is because it makes babies. If you think that a man's "investment" ends at ejaculation, then you're discounting all the years of life-experience it required for him to become attractive to you. I might just as easily say that "laying on your back" is your investment, but that would discredit all the time you spend making yourself pretty and wearing the right clothes and gaining social status in your group. If you don't believe me, then you can test it for yourself. Just simply spend one month where you don't use any makeup at all, you don't brush your hair at all, you don't wear push-up bras, you wear only daggy grey jumpsuits and slippers, walk with a slouch, and yell obscenities at people randomly. Basically abandon your instinctual social rules and become a complete dag. Then count how many times you have hot guys approach you. That will give you some idea about the real investment needed just to get a chance to make a baby. And it's much easier for women to get that chance. If you want to know how much investment a guy needs.... just count how many times you've had sex with small weedy pimply geeks who smoke pot and play XBox in their rooms all day.

And if you STILL think that men don't invest at all in babies, then perhaps you'd be so kind as to show us all how you make a baby without a man.

Ok, you can't do that? Ok. Then make a baby with a man who has invested nothing in becoming attractive. Just pick some fat, stupid, computer analyst, with bad skin and body odour, and poor social skills, with no talents or abilities beyond burping the alphabet and telling you the intricate workings of LINUX and how it was really funny that one time when someone typed /div instead of /dev, and have sex with him until you concieve. Then you must leave him and never have anything to do with another man, which means supporting yourself and your child alone, until your child is fully grown. Then, and only then, will you have shown me that men require no investment into making a baby.

But if that doesn't sound particularly appealing to you, then you can shut the f*ck up.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#39

Posted 23 November 2005 - 02:29 AM Edited by Mercie, 23 November 2005 - 02:41 AM.

I hate to say it, I'm not going to read a book on the same opinion I have heard using the same basis seen at least 7 times now.

Face it, everyone, no ones opinion will change. That is all it is, an opinion influenced by morals. Personally, my morals are quite strict on a person, I don't like to baby people or feel bad for them. Given that, I think all bases are covered and there is not much room for change.

edit :: read the relavant part, and I must say, that is one hell of a scenario. Should such a thing happen, me desperately wanting a baby and all, even such that I get tests and all, and that not working... Well, those people are under contract as they get paid for it. So, to say the least, that is a horrible example as it will not happen more than like 1 out of 20 times, especially for someone at such a young age.

Your analogies: 0
Your point: -3
I can bullsh*t an example too.


On a lighter note, thanks for the bday thing! I'm really not much of a bitch when I get beyond logical wars of opinion. biggrin.gif

jheath
  • jheath

    Nameless Redshirt

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2005

#40

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:00 AM

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Nov 22 2005, 20:19)
QUOTE
No one but the woman is investing in the baby, especially in a case of rape... thus why is it important what she does? Explain that please.

Ok, obviously you are having trouble dealing with the logic of the situation, so let's make this personal so you can understand it.

Imagine that you are 22, and you've found the love of your life. He's pretty much everything you've ever wanted in a man.

(snip)

Wow. Why the hell didn't you post this when we were discussing the role of men in the last abortions debate? This was amazing as rhetoric... I had to think for a couple minutes to even remember the reasons why I disagreed with you. I still disagree with you on points, but nevertheless... well done!

P.S. Yes, I realize me posting this contributes nothing to the debate, but damn... Mortukai deserves three cheers for his effort.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#41

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:05 AM

I'm going to make this easy. He's putting you (I assume you're female at this point..) in the shoes of the male.

Based on your position of "it's a woman's right to choose since it's her body and she's the only one invested in the baby", if a man and woman have sex, the woman conceives, the man wants it, and the woman doesn't, you think the woman should be able to abort it.

The man (you in Mort's hypothetical) has something invested in the conception. But you, being the incubator, should have ultimate control over a dual investment? It doesn't work like that, nor should it. Why should you be able to terminate a pregnancy that is the product of two people? Because it inconveniences you for nine months? If you agree with that sentiment, how then could you ever even think to hold that hypothetical surrogate mother responsible for aborting your baby? You invested in her, she accepted it, and then terminated your "investment".

Just like the man invested in you, you accepted it, and then you terminated the investment.

Get it yet?

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#42

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:10 AM

Nice straw man you got there, Mort. If a surrogate mother broke her end of the deal and had an abortion, then we're looking at a civil suit for breach of contract. Or, if the sperm/egg donors, lawyers, doctors, or what have you didn't add a clause to the contract explicitily detailing the surrogate's forfeiture of rights to chosing an abortion, well, tough luck for the donors. Hardly an issue for the state or church to have any say in.

Mar
  • Mar

    Pino no Usagi

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2005

#43

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:10 AM

Ugh, my viewpoints on this gets me raped by Republicans everyday.

Abortion is fine to me, and seriously you males have no right to even speak about it. The only right you have on this is if, you, the one who impregnated the lady, want to have the child or not. At the rate of things now, it’s perfectly fine for you to leave your wives. It happens everyday, but the question is; will the lady be able to take care of the baby by herself?

You males, who brag constantly about f*cking a girl, have no idea what actually goes on, do you? The condom have a chance of breaking, and not to mention if you use condoms without spermicidal you could get STDs and AIDS. Not all condoms protect against it. Back to the point though:

It seems that you always want to get f*cked, and you do pressure a girl about it. Not one of you sitting here has never masturbated before, unless you’re Baptist or your balls haven’t dropped yet, or had an “naughty” thought about a girl. It’s in our genetics to reproduce, and our hormones telling us to reproduce doesn’t help either.

Unfortunately our hormones don’t adapt to today’s society. People are growing at a much faster rate and women are getting their periods by the time they’re in 3rd grade, my case it was 2nd grade, and that means that we’re mature enough to reproduce and have babies. So, our bodies say, “Baby time!” but are our minds developed enough to take care and have a child?

Males are different. It’s proven that your reproductive organs do not mature as fast as the female organs do, and once they do, you get a burst of testosterone, which gives you the ability to want to reproduce. You masturbate before you can even have a climax, and doesn’t that mean that it’s time for you to reproduce?

Think about how old you were when you just have your first period or, for you males, the first time you ever masturbated or had a “wet dream.” Do you really think that you could have been able to take care of a child at that age? Do hormones come with common sense, or do they blind it?

Hormones blind our common sense and often lead to infatuation and puppy love. So, when if fact, you are f*cking a your girlfriend and the condom breaks, or you’re stupid enough to not use a condom, does this automatically mean that you’re mature enough to have a child?

No, in my opinion. Your brain isn’t developed enough to learn how to care for a child. A female could result in being scared to touch the child or, with the maturity they’re at, not know that shaking a child could lead to death or mental retardation. You might think, “Who’d be stupid enough to shake a child?” but when you’re in the moment, and a baby is screaming, and you have no idea what it wants, what do you do but unleash anger.

Why let a baby experience life and either die of live it sadly? With things like suicide, depression, and emotion problems around, why risk it? Why not wait till the proper moment to care for a child? Why not promise a baby a happy life with your maturity.

Abortions are necessary. We constantly look down on abused parenting and young people dropping out of school because they’re pregnant, but at the same time we look down to abortion.

You cannot miss what you never had.

Men, it’s your fault as much as the woman’s, if she’s getting pregnant. You have no right to tell us if abortions are “mean” “against god” etc. You do not have to carry the baby, and you have the chance of leaving your child. Women hormones almost force a woman to stay with the baby, it’s our instincts, and we can’t help it. Your opinion only applies if you want the baby or if you don’t want the baby. You do not decide for other women if they want to or don’t want to have the baby.

Unless you’re one of the few that get estrogen, you have no idea what it’s like.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#44

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:11 AM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 22 2005, 21:05)
I'm going to make this easy. He's putting you (I assume you're female at this point..) in the shoes of the male.

Based on your position of "it's a woman's right to choose since it's her body and she's the only one invested in the baby", if a man and woman have sex, the woman conceives, the man wants it, and the woman doesn't, you think the woman should be able to abort it.

The man (you in Mort's hypothetical) has something invested in the conception. But you, being the incubator, should have ultimate control over a dual investment? It doesn't work like that, nor should it. Why should you be able to terminate a pregnancy that is the product of two people? Because it inconveniences you for nine months? If you agree with that sentiment, how then could you ever even think to hold that hypothetical surrogate mother responsible for aborting your baby? You invested in her, she accepted it, and then terminated your "investment".

Just like the man invested in you, you accepted it, and then you terminated the investment.

Get it yet?

AGain, falling back to what I say, you abort when you don't want the baby. In such cases, again as stated NUMEROUS times, rape, the father will never come looking for a baby. So, if I get happily married and daddy wants a baby too, I don't think abortion would be much of an issue.

anuj
  • anuj

    iconic

  • Inactive Staff
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2002
  • None

#45

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:27 AM Edited by anuj, 23 November 2005 - 03:49 AM.

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 22 2005, 21:10)
Abortion is fine to me, and seriously you males have no right to even speak about it. The only right you have on this is if, you, the one who impregnated the lady, want to have the child or not. At the rate of things now, it’s perfectly fine for you to leave your wives. It happens everyday, but the question is; will the lady be able to take care of the baby by herself?


Coming from someone who has more than one abortion scare: Who says that leaving the woman in question (saying WIFE is assuming a bit too much, aye?) is okay? Even if one was to decide that running was easier than caring for a child, there are several reasons its not okay.

I've got a friend who pays $200 a month because his ex-girlfriend said it would be "okay" if they didn't see each other anymore. If you want to see okay in action, catch the next episode of "Maury". Chances are that its someone who is trying to find their baby's daddy.

Apparently having no strong male role model in their life can be replaced by receiving small pictures of men on greenbacks.

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 22 2005, 21:10)
You males, who brag constantly about f*cking a girl, have no idea what actually goes on, do you? The condom have a chance of breaking, and not to mention if you use condoms without spermicidal you could get STDs and AIDS. Not all condoms protect against it.


That's assuming quite a bit, eh? You're not the only ones concerned about becoming accidents happening. I'm not going to assume I know what goes on behind the scenes in the female brain, but here's a peek into the male: Everything doesn't magically shut down when we whip our cock out. We are somewhat aware of the consequences and the things around us, even if we don't let it on.

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 22 2005, 21:10)
You cannot miss what you never had.


I miss him everyday. I miss him when I see other people carrying on about their happy lives, children in tow. I look back, and I had no chance to put my input in. I miss him TERRIBLY. So don't you goddamn tell me what I can't miss.

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 22 2005, 21:10)
Men, it’s your fault as much as the woman’s, if she’s  getting pregnant. You have no right to tell us if abortions are “mean” “against god” etc. You do not have to carry the baby, and you have the chance of leaving your child.


We get the choice between financial liability vs. emotional and financial liability. You get the choice of mother or not. As huge of a decision it may be to you, it's going to be a lifelong battle for us aswell.

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 22 2005, 21:10)
Women hormones almost force a woman to stay with the baby, it’s our instincts, and we can’t help it. Your opinion only applies if you want the baby or if you don’t want the baby. You do not decide for other women if they want to or don’t want to have the baby.


So women abandoning their children or putting them into the adoption system doesn't count? Or just not relevant to your point?

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 22 2005, 21:10)
Unless you’re one of the few that get estrogen, you have no idea what it’s like.


Apparently it works both ways.

I think this was my first real post in D&D

edit - lol I put [b][/i]. What the f*ck?

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#46

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:44 AM

Mar, get off your high horse already. As anuj said, males have feelings too for the children they produce.

There's no excuse EVER for a woman to abort a child who is wanted by its father unless the woman is in serious physical danger. It's as much his as it is hers even if it's in her and not him.. There's no denying that. Christ ask a physician if you don't believe me.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#47

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:51 AM

Now we change the point. You say if the baby is wanted by the father, there is no reason for the woman to abort. Honestly, should things be as such, I would guess that the woman would want the baby just as much. Then we hop to rape where the man would not want the child, and if he does, I don't give a f*ck, not for a man who rapes people. Yeah, so, stalemate, no one wins. Thus, this is all pointless.

anuj
  • anuj

    iconic

  • Inactive Staff
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2002
  • None

#48

Posted 23 November 2005 - 04:02 AM

QUOTE (Mercie @ Nov 22 2005, 21:51)
Now we change the point. You say if the baby is wanted by the father, there is no reason for the woman to abort. Honestly, should things be as such, I would guess that the woman would want the baby just as much. Then we hop to rape where the man would not want the child, and if he does, I don't give a f*ck, not for a man who rapes people. Yeah, so, stalemate, no one wins. Thus, this is all pointless.

I think we were all assuming that there was consentual sex going on, but in case anyone doesn't feel that way, let me make myself very clear:

IN CASES OF INCEST AND RAPE, I DO NOT FIND ABORTION TO BE WRONG.

Looking back, I think I might as well say this aswell:

I was not discussing the right and wrong of abortion. I was defending the man's right to chose (lol) and ability to be involved in the decision/emotional process.

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#49

Posted 23 November 2005 - 04:08 AM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 22 2005, 23:44)
Mar, get off your high horse already.  As anuj said, males have feelings too for the children they produce.

There's no excuse EVER for a woman to abort a child who is wanted by its father unless the woman is in serious physical danger.  It's as much his as it is hers even if it's in her  and not him..  There's no denying that.  Christ ask a physician if you don't believe me.

Okay then, try this hypothetical on for size:

Let's say some young newly in love couple are having sex and stuff, but are using condoms to avoid having a baby. Now imagine the guy decides he wants a baby without informing the female, and starts poking holes in the condoms. I have no idea why any guy would want to do this, but we'll assume for the point of this example that he's afraid she's going to leave him and that he'll never find someone else or something. Or maybe she's rich. Whatever. At any rate, he's now impregnated the girl surreptitiously, yet she never wanted to get pregnant and dude knew this. Now, the next logical step in this chain of events is that the guy would never admit he sabotaged the condom, and the pregnancy would be considered an "accident." Next, the girl decides she wants an abortion, the guy wants to keep it. Who is riding the moral high horse in this situation?


And for bonus points, how long before the moral horse rider meets the train coming from Nebraska at 40KM/hr?

Mar
  • Mar

    Pino no Usagi

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2005

#50

Posted 23 November 2005 - 04:43 AM

QUOTE (anuj @ Nov 22 2005, 23:02)
QUOTE (Mercie @ Nov 22 2005, 21:51)
Now we change the point. You say if the baby is wanted by the father, there is no reason for the woman to abort. Honestly, should things be as such, I would guess that the woman would want the baby just as much. Then we hop to rape where the man would not want the child, and if he does, I don't give a f*ck, not for a man who rapes people. Yeah, so, stalemate, no one wins. Thus, this is all pointless.

I think we were all assuming that there was consentual sex going on, but in case anyone doesn't feel that way, let me make myself very clear:

IN CASES OF INCEST AND RAPE, I DO NOT FIND ABORTION TO BE WRONG.

Looking back, I think I might as well say this aswell:

I was not discussing the right and wrong of abortion. I was defending the man's right to chose (lol) and ability to be involved in the decision/emotional process.

A woman and a man should decide if they want the baby or not. If one doesn't want the baby, then it's better not to have one at all.

If you want a baby, then go get one.

Colotomy Headwind
  • Colotomy Headwind

    Tha Clown

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005

#51

Posted 23 November 2005 - 05:28 AM

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 23 2005, 04:43)
If you want a baby, then go get one.

Yes, but how will we accomplish that with you mighty estrogen warriors and your right to abort? Apparently, if a woman doesn't want a baby, abortion is the best option. If you go around shoving clothes hangers up your uterus, how do you expect us no-good slackjob males to conceive or obtain a child?

anuj
  • anuj

    iconic

  • Inactive Staff
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2002
  • None

#52

Posted 23 November 2005 - 05:39 AM

QUOTE (Mar @ Nov 22 2005, 22:43)
A woman and a man should decide if they want the baby or not. If one doesn't want the baby, then it's better not to have one at all.

I took the liberty of embiggening the part I found funny.

QUOTE (Mar)
You do not have to carry the baby, and you have the chance of leaving your child. Women hormones almost force a woman to stay with the baby, it’s our instincts, and we can’t help it. Your opinion only applies if you want the baby or if you don’t want the baby. You do not decide for other women if they want to or don’t want to have the baby.


So you're saying:

Bob can tell Sally not to have the baby. But Sally doesn't have to listen because Bob does not decide for her. But Sally MUST not have the child at all if Bob decides he doesn't want it? Is it just me, or did that stop making sense after "Sally"?

All idiocy aside, though, you're going in circles. Assuming you meant post-f*cking when you say "it's better not to have one at all".

edit - Mercie - was that directed at me or Colotomy?

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#53

Posted 23 November 2005 - 05:40 AM

Judging by the population increase, I think you need not worry about that. If not, use your charming wit.

Sweets
  • Sweets

    Pяopagaиda Iиc.

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2004
  • Unknown

#54

Posted 23 November 2005 - 06:22 AM

Personally I'm against abortion, but I can't quite bring myself to say it should be illegal either. If it was my child/mass of cells/whatever that she was trying to abort, I might have to seriously consider chaining her to a radiator for nine months. The best I can hope for is that it never becomes an issue. This is one of those arguments I tend to steer away from, mostly because there is no way to make one side see the other's point of view. The best I have are really bad comparisons.

Bad example #1:
Woman and man want a child, try for a while, then as soon as is scientifically possible after conception, the woman finds out that she is pregnant. Guy decides to change his mind. Now that he doesn't want a child, he takes it on himself to poison the woman with something that in no way harms her, but causes her to lose the pregnancy.

Does the girl think "damn, now I'm going to lose some blood", or "that bastard killed my baby." Again it was a really bad example, but if you are a woman just imagine for a second that you lived in a world where it was completely legal for him to do that. He has all the power, and gets to decide if your baby lives or dies.


Bad example #2:
(This one is much worse of an example, but if there's a better way of putting, I can't think of it right now.)
Man is (somehow) impregnated by doing something where he knew it would be a possible outcome. He is now facing the glorious future of squeezing a watermelon out of his ass/eurethra/whatever. The doctors tell him that all his organs will return to normal, and although there is a slight chance he could die, it's so very slim that it's not even worth considering. Oh, and they're thinking of passing a law that takes away his "right to choose" because removing the watermelon immediately would make him an evil watermelon killer. It's not about his body, it's about the watermelons.

This whole issue is just lose lose. It's is one of those issues that will always have people at odds. The one side will never be able to understand the other's point of view, muchless agree with them. And regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal, one side will always feel that the government has stepped in and taken away their "rights."

jheath
  • jheath

    Nameless Redshirt

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2005

#55

Posted 23 November 2005 - 04:46 PM

QUOTE (SWEETSAPRIK @ Nov 23 2005, 00:22)
This whole issue is just lose lose. It's is one of those issues that will always have people at odds. The one side will never be able to understand the other's point of view, muchless agree with them.

True, it is an awful choice. However, for all the heat that gets pumped into the abortions debate, for all the polarization and culture wars, there is a great deal of common ground that most people can agree upon.

For example:

a) Most conservatives would agree that there are at least some scenarios (rape, incest, danger to the mother's life, danger to the child's life) where an abortion should at least be an option. Conceding this takes the venom out of the pro-life position, which many liberals see as mindlessly sacrificing the rights or life of the mother. After all, all but the most reckless believers in pro-life-at-all-cost would shy away from forcing mothers to go ahead with life-endangering pregnancies for the sake of giving birth to a child with Down's syndrome.

b) Most liberals would would find late-term abortions of conveniance to be morally reprehensible. Shaping policy to limit late-term abortions to only the most extreme cases would go far to undo the perception of the pro-choice position as tantamount to baby-killing-on-a-whim. Few would subscribe to the idea that a woman should be able to kill a baby a few days before birth for no better reason than a passing mood swing.

These two concessions don't exactly bring us to a well-defined middle ground, but they are a good start by at least backing away from the extremes. I am convinced that there are many possible compromises which would address the concerns of both sides, providing as good as possible a solution to the overall bad situation that is an unwanted pregnancy.

QUOTE
And regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal, one side will always feel that the government has stepped in and taken away their "rights."


So true. We shouldn't forget that the abortions debate is not just about abortions themselves, but the role of the State in forcing decisions upon its citizens. Many would argue that, while abortions are evil, a government foisting the values of one set of citizens upon all others is an even greater evil. I myself don't subscribe to a particularly anarchist view, but I will say this: the power of the State, when it is called for, is best used sparingly.


cindy.
  • cindy.

    Happy Bunny

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2004

#56

Posted 24 November 2005 - 11:07 AM

I don't know how it works in most countries. But at home, in New Zealand, if you want an abortion, you go and get an abortion. If you're dumb enough (or smart enough as the case may sometimes be) to get yourself knocked up, it's costs $44.95 and a doctors visit.

It's not like a back-alleyway thing like it was in the 70's when my parents were growing up. It's clean, and it hurts a lot less than getting a tattoo. You can speak hypothetically all day, but it still doesn't prove anything. If your body is mature enough to have sex, and you consent, making that conscious decision means you make yourself liable to get pregnant. And if you're not ready for a baby, you deal with the consequences, should such an event occur.

I may know that killing a baby is wrong. But sometimes, you just don't have another option. And if it's a case of $44.95, or my life being changed forever, I think I'll take the money.

EDIT- Every Saturday I get in arguments with the anti-abortion catholic scum (and don't get me wrong, I'm RC too) who hang around in O'Connell Street (bloody Ireland). They're like Jehova's Witnesses- fun to mess with. My australian friend went up to them and asked where she could get one of these "abortions" and they chased her down the street. T'was hillarious. Anyway.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#57

Posted 24 November 2005 - 08:59 PM

What if those Catholics knew it was wrong to kill you because you support abortion, but between your life and that of hundreds of babies, they'd rather take yours. So they kill you. How would you feel then?

jheath
  • jheath

    Nameless Redshirt

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2005

#58

Posted 24 November 2005 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 24 2005, 14:59)
What if those Catholics knew it was wrong to kill you because you support abortion, but between your life and that of hundreds of babies, they'd rather take yours. So they kill you. How would you feel then?

Uhm, technically she'd be dead, so she'd feel nothing from that point on.

I've always wondered at the militant conservatives who think that killing is acceptable as long as it is done in the name of the "pro-life" cause. Odd how they end up using the same sorts of ends-justify-the-means logic as their extremist left-wing opponents.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#59

Posted 25 November 2005 - 12:02 AM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 24 2005, 14:59)
So they kill you. How would you feel then?

Just realise what you said, then tell me you were tired when you wrote it, as that is the only way I will excuse it. Otherwise, it's the same idioms that ruin any chance of a point you have.

Sweets
  • Sweets

    Pяopagaиda Iиc.

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2004
  • Unknown

#60

Posted 25 November 2005 - 12:40 AM

I understand exactly what he means.

There are people that think killing is wrong under any circumstances, some that wouldn't even kill someone who is trying to kill them. Some people think killing in self defence or in defense of another is acceptable.

Removing that argument from the current context, say one of these people finds themselves in the unlikely situation of being able to save many people by taking one person's life. The situation doesn't really matter, but for the sake of argument say there's a person in a bank wearing a bomb who is about to explode it in a room filled with people. The person that thinks killing can never be excused happens to be under a desk next to where a guard's gun has landed after he was shot.

If the bomb goes off and that person did nothing to stop it he might feel that he didn't do anything wrong. He might feel that had he picked up the gun and shot the man before the bomb went off it would have been him murdering someone.

Someone else looking at the same situation might say that said person selfishly put his beliefs over the lives of all those others. That since he was the only one in a position to stop it and he did nothing, he is in part responsible for all of those deaths.

Now back to the original context. One side feels that the matter that is removed during an abortion is a human life, while the other sees it as nothing more than a mass of cells. If you believe that it's just cells then an abortion is akin to having a tumor removed. Whereas if you believe it's a life then a baby was just murdered.

@jheath
Those were two very good examples.
Once a fetus gets to the point where it can survive outside the womb and grow into a normal adult I have a hard time not considering it a baby. If abortion was illegal in cases of rape it would in some respects be like the state forcing the victim to be raped a second time.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users