Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Hooded

Abortions

Recommended Posts

Hooded

Are you for or against it?

 

I believe it should be the womens choice, not the governments aslong as it isn't abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

I don't think the government should have any say in the matter really. But I also don't agree with any of that "woman's choice" crap either. What the fvck happened to the father? Is his opinion completely worthless? It seems so. Modern feminist society loves to scream about "a woman's right to choose", but what if the father doesn't want to keep the baby? He has no say in the matter, and will end up paying child support to a child he didn't want. Or if she aborts, and he did want it, he has no legal recourse available against her killing one of his potential children.

 

I think it should be patently obvious that both parents should be required to decide if the baby is aborted or not. Or at the very least, if the father doesn't want the child, and the mother decides to keep it, the father should be absolved of any responsibility to support that child. If a woman wants to have her choice, she bloody well better deal with the responsibilities and repurcussions of that choice, without forcing someone else to carry the burden of her decision.

 

But no, outside of ridiculous religious concerns, the government should have no say in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jow

We need to address societies attitude towards sex.

 

At the moment abortion is needed. We can't take it away because then there will be an epidemic of young girls that cant cope with their unwanted babies and therefore neglecting them, or claiming benefits etc, which will then become a further strain on society.

 

So seeing as we can't take away the right to an abortion, instead we should try and tackle the need for it in the first place. Proper sex education would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, people are brought up by TV, and so instilling any kind of 'moral' into kids becomes impossible.

 

But either way, casual termination of a casually conceived baby is not the right way to go about it.

 

I realise that teenage pregnancies aren't the only issue here, but they are certainly the most important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

Mortukai you only addressed the solution to one of your problems. What would you have if the father wanted it and the mother did not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Mortukai you only addressed the solution to one of your problems. What would you have if the father wanted it and the mother did not?

Simple, the mother carries the baby to term and then the father gets sole custody of it once it is born. The mother then loses all rights to that child and doesn't have to pay any child support for it (as if your laws would ever make that a reality anyway).

 

Exactly the same as if the genders were reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

Isn't it true that in most cases women have abortions because they don't want to carry a baby to term? If no women had problems with carrying unwanted babies to term, no baby would be aborted, and all unwanted babies would be adopted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moto

Mortukai, what you must realize is that the man does nothing in the conception of a baby, save for knocking the girl up. The woman, on the other hand, has to change her entire lifestyle to accomodate the baby, something the man would never understand. Now, the man sees no problem his lifes a breeze. Obviously this is a one-sided process, so why should the decision not be one-sided as well?

 

As far as the actual question of abortion, I'm all for it. There are simple people who would not be able to support a baby, and it's obvious that the woman never intended to have one if she is asking for an abortion. It's her life, it's her choice. Is it murder? Of course not. The baby is not a sentient being, it cannot sustain it's own life, therefore I believe that she who is sustaining the life should have the choice to continue or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

 

As far as the actual question of abortion, I'm all for it. There are simple people who would not be able to support a baby, and it's obvious that the woman never intended to have one if she is asking for an abortion. It's her life, it's her choice. Is it murder? Of course not. The baby is not a sentient being, it cannot sustain it's own life, therefore I believe that she who is sustaining the life should have the choice to continue or not.

 

If you can't support a baby, you should give it up for adoption. It's not her life in question. It's her lifestyle. For nine months. It is on the other hand, the life of a human. Can this human think and reason and converse and scream and sustain its own life? No. Can a retarded person sustain its own life? No, pending severity. Should the caretakers of mentally retarded people be able to kill them? Or senile people? Or severely handicapped people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Mortukai, what you must realize is that the man does nothing in the conception of a baby, save for knocking the girl up. The woman, on the other hand, has to change her entire lifestyle to accomodate the baby, something the man would never understand. Now, the man sees no problem his lifes a breeze. Obviously this is a one-sided process, so why should the decision not be one-sided as well?

Goddamn boy, has no-one taught you about the birds and the bees? The next person who says "it's her life, it's her decision" is gonna get smacked in the face with a fish by me. Making a baby requires TWO people, a male and a female. It is a process that has evolved over millions of years. Logically, only one of those parents can gestate the developing baby (although some sort of lego system where each parent gestates half and they combine when they are born could be feasible I guess). But in all cases, the baby is a product of both the father and the mother, each one responsible equally for half of the child's genetic make-up. Neither male nor female chose to be the gender that they are, nor did they earn it, so neither can claim special priviledges over their role in the natural propogation of the species.

 

Therefore, any child which is conceived is logically equally owned by both parents. As an analogy, consider a shareholder in a business who bought 50% of the business when it started. They may not run the business day-to-day, but they still own half of it by virtue of their contribution. Or, as a humorous example, consider this joke: A man and a woman were contesting custody over their child in court. The judge asked the woman to explain why she should keep the child, and she responded "Your honour, I carried this baby in my womb for nine months, providing it with the energy and resources it needed to grow and live, therefore I should have custody". The judge nodded, and asked the man to present his case. The man thought for a second, and said "Your honour, if I put 50c into a drink machine, and a can of Coke comes out, does the can belong to me, or the machine?". The judge gave custody to the man.

 

The point is that both parties are required, and each have an important role. Without the man, the woman could never concieve in the first place. Without the woman, the child could never grow. The baby is the product of both parents, and does not belong solely to one or the other. Therefore killing the baby without the consent of one of the parents is wrong. If the father secretly made the mother drink a concoction that would abort the baby when she wanted to keep it, no-one would argue that he was in the right. But for some reason people have no problem if a woman kills the baby when the father wants it.

 

 

If you can't support a baby, you should give it up for adoption. It's not her life in question. It's her lifestyle. For nine months. It is on the other hand, the life of a human. Can this human think and reason and converse and scream and sustain its own life? No. Can a retarded person sustain its own life? No, pending severity. Should the caretakers of mentally retarded people be able to kill them? Or senile people? Or severely handicapped people?

This is a very good point, which I was going to bring up but you beat me to it smile.gif

 

But it's not actually 9 months that the woman has to change her lifestyle for. It's only about 3, because for the first 6 months the baby is too small to really make a difference to the mother's mobility. The only other "lifestyle changes" before that time are exercising less and eating more, and if anyone complains about that, then they can suck my balls. Once she starts "showing", she can't exercise at all really (I mean, she can still do some non-intensive exercises quite easily, but no more running or weight training), and has more trouble sitting down and standing up, but she gets paid leave from work anyway so who gives a fvck? If someone told me I'd have to change my lifestyle so that I had to be lazy, rest, and eat more, I'd be laughing.

 

And a week after the baby is born, the mother can go straight back to her old lifestyle.

 

Seriously Meto, you gotta stop listening to the crap that women go on about re pregnancy and "how hard it is to be a woman", because I was raised by a single mother, and I've lived with several girls, both girlfriends and just friends, and some of my exes now have children (to other men) and I keep in contact with them. All the crap you hear in the media is complete horsesh*t. Being a housewife is the easiset thing in the world (trust me, I've been a "housewife" for many accumulated years), and having babies is only a minor inconvenience for a couple of months followed by several hours of excruciating pain, but once it's over, her body is flooded with endorphins and other hormones, which completely offsets the pain and is why you see mothers smiling and being so happy once the baby is born (it's an evolutionary trick to ensure she doesn't kill the baby or neglect it after her pain).

 

 

Isn't it true that in most cases women have abortions because they don't want to carry a baby to term? If no women had problems with carrying unwanted babies to term, no baby would be aborted, and all unwanted babies would be adopted.

I think this is one of thoce times when we can say two things. 1) She shouldn't have had unprotected sex in the first place. And 2) Stiff sh*t, welcome to nature. Seriously, why should what she wants be valued more than what the father wants? So she doesn't want to carry it to term. He doesn't want his child to be killed. Whose preference takes priority? What it she wants to carry it to term, and he doesn't want it? This is why I ignore selfish concerns, and consider the situation in a higher framework that looks at principles of equality and life. If neither parent wants it, fine, abort the child. If the mother wants it, but the father doesn't, then the father is absolved of responsibility/rights and the mother can carry it to term. If the father wants it, but the mother doesn't, then the father absorbs all responsibility/rights for the child after it is born, and the mother carries it to term, and is then absolved of any responsibilities/rights toward the child.

 

Or they can just think ahead and use protection ffs. Abortion should never be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

You're still saying that in certain cases women who don't want babies should have to carry them to term. If this was agreeable, why not eliminate abortions all together by having all pregnant women carry their babies to term, and then have them adopted?

 

 

And I agree one hundred percent that they should have just planned the f*ck ahead and saved themselves a lot of grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

You're still saying that in certain cases women who don't want babies should have to carry them to term. If this was agreeable, why not eliminate abortions all together by having all pregnant women carry their babies to term, and then have them adopted?

Because adoption is a poor option. No child should ever be brought into the world feeling unwanted. Orphanages are horrible and there are never enough parents available/willing to adopt the children, so they end up being raised in an environment conducive to crime and anti-social behaviour.

 

I just don't think any child should have to suffer with the knowledge that neither of its parents wants it. So with my proposal at least one parent will want the child or it simply wouldn't be born.

 

In my view, neither abortion nor adoption should be necessary. Children should always have at least one biological parent that loves them.

 

These are just my views on things though. I know there is no way the system will ever move towards them, because it has too much momentum moving towards all the rights being for women (her right to choose, and her right alone) and all the responsibility being placed on men (he must financially support even children he has no rights to see, and get lumped with all the mother's vindictiveness on top of it ("Yo daddy ain't 'ere 'cos yo daddy ain't sh*t!")). It's fvcked up but there's nothing I can do because logical equity minded people like me are one in a million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BenMillard

 

Cerbera wades in.

 

Firstly, as with all debates, we need some better definitions about what we are discussing. Presumably when we talk about abortions, we are talking about the destruction or wastage of a fertalised human egg/ovum. We must recognise that this is something which happens "naturally" since fertalised ovums often fail to develop and so are removed in the woman's period. This is why couples who are "trying for a baby" often take several months before gaining a robust enough embryo for it to begin developing into a foetus. Therefore we must except that the deaths of unborn people occurs naturally anyway and is often caused automatically by the woman being stressed by unsuitable circumstances. In a sense, there is a natural mechanism for abortion.

 

I havn't decided my view on this issue since it isn't something which hasn't cropped up in my life or those around me, AFAIK. Since one might hinks nothing of destroying millions of sperm each day, destroying a single ovum which has a single sperm inside does not seem like such a big deal, on the face of things. After all, there are plenty more ovums and plenty more sperm to try again another time.

 

The difficulty is that the embyro is, nature permitting, growing into a human. An ovum or a sperm by itself will not. Therefore one must also recognise that an abortion is the knowing, pre-meditated destruction of something which will quite often have eventually grown into an independant human if that destructive event had not occured. It's a tough call, which is no doubt why the debate has been going on for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

We could try another way where a mandatory law is introduced, where men at the age of 16 have to take the drug Desogestrel on a daily basis, to render them infertile till they actually plan to have a child.

It's vastly less invasive, more practical, it'd be cheaper & there'd be no more unwanted pregnancies, abortions or vindictive bitches to muddy up a man's day.

 

Ofcourse, this would mean men would then be forced to be responsible for their own reproductive system (aka remember to take a pill), rather than going out of their way to control a woman's reproductive future.

I don't imagine this idea would be too popular, afterall, it'd take all the fun out of controlling every aspect of a woman's existence right down to what she does or doesn't do with her uterus.

 

But wait, there's more...

 

If a man failed to take the pill daily, then impregnated a woman, she could then be made to have the child (no abortions!) he would then be forced to marry her & raise the child (No adoptions!).

 

What a happy family that would make!

 

Introducing such a law, would also mean one other thing, that there's the implication that men can't be trusted to make the right decision for themselves, that there's no room for unplanned pregnancies ever, no matter what their emotional, mental, medical or financial status may be.

 

What a fabulous prospect. I feel all warm & fuzzy inside just thinking about it.

 

And this is exactly the implication men make about women when they 'intervene' at the point of conception. There's no such thing as a 'joint decision' here. The decision has been made....by the man.

Ergo, any decision a woman would have made, would have been deemed unworthy or incorrect by men no matter what that decision might have been.

 

Overall I can't understand why this is still a matter of debate in this day & age, there's nothing to debate, women the world over have controlled their reproductive sytems since time immemorial.

Women are going to abort whether it's legal, illegal, monitored, regulated or altered no matter what people have to say about it & all the debates, hand wringing & threats in the world aren't going to change it.

 

Bottom line, no matter what your moral, ethical, religous or gender bias is, you can't enforce the unenforcable. If someone doesn't want to be pregnant, they'll find a way to terminate it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke
Here in the UK abortions are allowed legally but under a bunch of rules, and two doctors must agree before one can be carried out, unless it's being carried out for medical reasons. Having spent at least 5 weeks preparing and am now beginning to write an essay on Abortion, I can safely say I have no f*cking idea. There's no true answer, a foetus at an early age does not know of it's existance, yet is it right that we destroy the potential for a proper life? Since after conception a unique person is effectively already formed. Then again, is it right that women should have to give birth to babies which they don't truly want? At the moment the limit for abortions here is 24 weeks, yet babies that are born prematurely at that age can survive. The one thing I am certain of is that I believe the limit is too high, especially since most abortions are carried out before the twelth week of pregnancy anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YeTi
I think they should control it to stop women having abortions when the baby could live if it was born but other than that i think they should be allowed to have it done. Maybe the husband or boyfriend should have some say in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

My point isn't against the voice of men, certainly a partner has the right to their opinion. My point is where does one draw the line on opposing opinions?

Where do you draw the line on being a partner with a voice? A husband? A boyfriend? Even a one night stand?

He wants to keep it, she doesn't. She wants to keep it, he doesn't.

There's no room here for a compromise.

You'll either have a child or you won't, it's not something you can share.

Then you have to factor in security. Ultimately all a man has to do is walk away if he changes his mind, but for the woman, a viable pregnancy has to be seen through to term. So, she's literally left holding the baby, a baby she may never have wanted.

So, then there's the proposal of sole custody to the parent who wants it. Once again, what if at the point of birth, the parent with sole custody changes their mind? A ward of the state? Or it goes to extended family? It goes then back to the other parent?

A mine field of problems in any court.

This all without even factoring in the emotional aspect of it.

 

You can't have it both ways, say a man has a voice, yet say that in a system where a man only need change his mind & walk.

Even the subject of child payments is a joke, it costs more for a woman to fight to get the overdue payments due to her child/ren by the father, than the payments actually are anyway.

Child payments aren't enforcable, they are only as regular as the father that pays them regularly.

Basically, most of these women are too busy working & getting they're kids to school on time to be wasting time & money on getting $25 a week. They don't have the luxury of vindictiveness, especially if she's on a low to medium income.

 

At the other end of the sprectrum, countries like China, with their one child policy have turned the matter of abortion to the other extreme, where women are forced to terminate a pregnancy, upon being discovered, right up until being full term.

 

So it's clearly not a matter of morality or 'life' in either extreme, it's about control over women, negating the choices they'd make for themselves & their future.

 

I firmly believe in limitations, if after say, 16 weeks you find yourself pregnant, it's viable, meaning it must be seen through to term. 16 weeks is more than enough time for anyone of sound mind to make a choice.

But I believe that choice, ultimately, lies with a woman.

 

The use of termination as a form of regular birth control irks me, as there are so many other easier & less invasive ways to avoid pregnancy, but once again, you can't dictate in a system that provides the procedure equally for all women. The instance of this happening is so negliable anyway that it's a pointless argument that the anti-choice crew use as regularly as possible, right along with their shock tactics & violent demonstrations.

Though admittedly, most of them aren't that extreme, they genuinely want to help no doubt, even if it is a little niave.

 

I can speak with some authority on the matter, I've had an abortion (at 5 weeks) 10 years ago & I've had a child. At the time of termination, my boyfriend was very supportive of my decision, he wanted me to be happy, we discussed it at length.

This leads me to wonder why any man would want to force a woman he's been intimate with into giving birth if she were clearly against it.

It would take a rather nasty individual to take that kind of action as far as I can see.

How then do you enforce such a 'law'? Keep a woman in solitary confinement till birth so she doesn't terminate it? Then snatch it away?

 

With my son, my pregnancy wasn't apparent till long after his father & I parted ways. He wants nothing to do with his. Well that's his problem, not mine, but I've never recieved a red cent from him because I point blank refused it. I wasn't gonig to be paid off like some dirty little secret.

So much for us 'vindictive bitches'. I was left to make the decision for myself, so I did. I've got my own money, I don't need his paltry change.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander apparently, so how about a law where the men who treat fatherhood like a franchise, impregnating women left, right & center, get a court ordered injunction on their testicles?

Sounds ridiculous right?

It should, because it is. You can't regulate the reproductive system to the point of physical enforcement, it's impossible, impractical & outrageous.

 

You can tell I'm pro- choice, that's obvious. But to be pro-choice means to eccept that younger women will choose to keep their baby, so it irritates me no end when these 'pro-lifers' are usually the first to look down their nose at the people they claim to support.

 

I'm not against any woman who would never entertain the notion of an abortion, my own mother is one of these women & she gave birth to me at 19. But she supported my decision to terminate, because it was right for me.

I think trust is the key.

No one knows a woman better than she knows herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Ofcourse, this would mean men would then be forced to be responsible for their own reproductive system (aka remember to take a pill), rather than going out of their way to control a woman's reproductive future.

Everyone, say Hi to the resident feminazi. But don't be silly enough to have an opinion based on actual equality and recognition of rights for males in any way shape or form. That wouldn't be PC.

 

Hey Naomi, how about you take a second to get a clue? Birth control pills like Desogestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol don't work on men. At all. That's because the way a man's reproductive organs work, means that sperm is constantly being produced. In order to make a man infertile, they'd have to find a chemical that either shut down the entire mechanisms of the testes, or fvcked them up enough to render all sperm completely useless. I'm sure there are such chemicals out there. The problem I think you'll find, is finding a chemical that only does this temporarily and doesn't leave the man sterile for life. Which would be bad.

 

On the other hand, the female reproductive system comes with a built in failsafe. See, girls don't produce eggs constantly. They are born with all the eggs they will ever produce. But they are released monthly according to cycles of hormones. And therein lies the trick. Because eggs are only released when hormone levels are right, we can trick the system by maintaining the hormone levels at the point required during the infertile period, thus preventing her from ovulating. So the way a female's reproductive system works gives us an easy way to prevent fertility with no harm done, because once the hormone levels go back to where they need to be for her to ovulate, everything is back to normal.

 

Trust me, if there was a male pill, men would take it. Most men fear getting a girl pregnant more than she does, and for good reason with the laws as they are (she can choose to have it and he has no say in the matter, and then he is forced to pay child support and has no say in that matter either).

 

 

But wait, there's more...

 

If a man failed to take the pill daily, then impregnated a woman, she could then be made to have the child (no abortions!) he would then be forced to marry her & raise the child (No adoptions!).

 

What a happy family that would make!

Hooray for straw man arguments! No-one has said that no abortions would be allowed. In fact, I've said that abortions are allowed, if both parents agree to the abortion (excluding extreme cases like rape or the father is dead). Maybe if you re-read my arguments and those of the other posters, you might actually have an idea about what we are saying and your replies won't come off as reactionary irrational bullsh!t.

 

 

Introducing such a law, would also mean one other thing, that there's the implication that men can't be trusted to make the right decision for themselves, that there's no room for unplanned pregnancies ever, no matter what their emotional, mental, medical or financial status may be.

 

What a fabulous prospect. I feel all warm & fuzzy inside just thinking about it.

Please explain how a law that disallows abortion and adoption (which only you introduced, and no-one else here has argued for) implies that men can't be trusted to make the right decision for themselves.

 

In fact, I think such an implication is far more apparent in the current system, which denies that men have any rights or say in the matter of abortion. "Women's bodies, women's choices" pretty much runs on the assumption that men have no place in procreation and no say in its course.

 

 

And this is exactly the implication men make about women when they 'intervene' at the point of conception. There's no such thing as a 'joint decision' here. The decision has been made....by the man.

Ergo, any decision a woman would have made, would have been deemed unworthy or incorrect by men no matter what that decision might have been.

I'm quite curious as to what the fvck you are talking about here. Do you think you could elaborate in a coherent and logical fashion? My feminine intuition isn't quite honed to the point it'd need to be to deduce how you came to such conclusions, as you are missing severel premises from your argument and I dare not guess what they may be.

 

 

Overall I can't understand why this is still a matter of debate in this day & age, there's nothing to debate, women the world over have controlled their reproductive sytems since time immemorial.

Women are going to abort whether it's legal, illegal, monitored, regulated or altered no matter what people have to say about it & all the debates, hand wringing & threats in the world aren't going to change it.

 

Bottom line, no matter what your moral, ethical, religous or gender bias is, you can't enforce the unenforcable. If someone doesn't want to be pregnant, they'll find a way to terminate it.

Gee, that's such a brilliant argument, I'm not sure how anyone could best it.

 

But I'll have a go.

 

See, by using your logic: --that a thing will still be done whether or not it is illegal, legal, monitored, regulated, or altered, thus there is no point in considering it-- we can make all sorts of things right. Like theft. And rape. And murder. These things are all still done whether they are legal, illegal, monitored, regulated, or altered. They have also, coincidentally, benn done since time immemorial (which apparently means since humans evolved). Therefore we shouldn't bother considering whether/how theft, murder, and rape are controlled.

 

Thus by analogical parallel comparison I have shown that your argument is severely flawed and not universally applicable, and thus wrong. Or, if not wrong, more flawed than other, more reasoned arguments.

 

Long live feminazism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

Oh dear.

I've upset you.

You saw my posts as a some sort of threat to your train of logic.

You may find this difficult to believe, but not everything written here earlier revolved around responding to your statements.

 

You also went straight for the word all the desperately unhappy go to when feeling cornered by facts & reason. "Feminazi!!!!"

I'll have to assume for the moment you think I'm somehow responsible for the Holocaust, unless ofcourse you're referring to some new feminine hygeine product I've not heard of.

 

Calm down.

You're being irrational.

Clearly facts & reason are lost on you.

But you did assist in illustrating my point. Thankyou.

 

Anger Management is calling BTW.

 

It's ironic that you should be the one to state elsewhere that you enjoy the debates here because they maintain reason & maturity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Upset? Er, no.

 

Angry? Again, no.

 

You, a threat? Haha. No.

 

Facts and reason lost on me? Well, let's see, did I reply to your post with logical arguments, citing known biology to support them? Hmm, looks like I did. What about you? Did you respond to any of my arguments? Hmm, nope, doesn't look like it.

 

Instead, you simply did the reactionary thing and responded to the least significant of any of my words, and tried to attack me based on those. I think that's called ad hominem, but then again, I think that only applies when you are actually trying to argue by attacking the person. Whereas here, you aren't even trying to argue, you're just plain old attacking sans reason.

 

What's ironic is you calling me irrational. What's ironic is you attacking my maturity after a whole post dedicated to snide pretention in an attempt to dodge my arguments.

 

So come on Naomi, oh sage of ethics and rights: counter my arguments. Logically prove why abortion should only be a woman's issue, and why men should have no say in it. Logically prove why my proposals (which, one would hope, you have read) are inferior/insufficient. Consider it a challenge. Just try not to fvck up, 'cos I'm up for a decent intellectual duel, and I don't want you losing after my first riposte like so many others.

 

Oh, and fyi, anyone who harps on about men controlling women, especially in such a far fatched issue as abortion, is by definition a feminazi. A feminazi tries to twist any situation to reinforce their victimization, even where it is clear that they are far from victims. They then use this victim power to manipulate others into siding with them. "Oh, woe is me, men try to control me and oppress me, take away their rights and power and give me more rights and special benefits without any responsibility!". Gimme a fvcking break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tongue of Colicab

I often am torn between my own thoughts.

 

I agree with what many or some have said... "If they want it, take it. But, I don't so I want nothing to do with it." But, I also think that if it was illegal, they would think more about doing it unprotected (,yo).

 

"OMG, lets have unprotected sex, lol."

"But I might get teh pregnanto."

"We can get an abortion."

"OK"

 

The next day...

 

(Cop) "Hey, abortion is now illegal, lol."

(kids) "lol, now we have a kid."

 

BUT... (heh heh)

 

"OMG, lets do the nasty!"

"Awwww, meng. No condemos,lol."

"And we cant get an abortion, its illegal, rofl."

"Lets do drugs play video games instead."

"Yay!"

 

OMG, what if the unexpected happens?

 

"Lol, lets do it."

"OK"

"Yay! Condoms!"

"w00t!"

 

*After teh sex*

 

"OMG, it broke." sad.gif

"Does that law have an exception?"

*Mysterious cop appears out of nowhere*

(Cop) "If you are raped or your condom breaks, abort away!"

"Yay, lol, we're wreckless."

 

...The end....?

Edited by Tongue of Colicab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tongue of Colicab

x2 post, sorreh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BenMillard

(I hope this doesn't seem condescending but a couple of folks in here might find A Guide to Presenting Arguments helpful in making your posts in D&D easier to follow.)

 

This is a very complex issue and we currently seem to have all the different aspects flying around like an intellectual food-fight. A bit of systemisation is perhaps in order? The major questions as I see them are listed below. Obviously it isn't a mandatory checklist for everyone to fill out, it's just my humble attempt to make the discussion a bit more manageable.

  1. Can one justify the knowing destruction of a human life?
  2. Is there much of a distinction between contraception and abortion?
  3. Is preventing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and family planning more desirable (or rather, less undesirable) than abortions?
  4. Is the reproductive role of either gender more significant than that of the other during conception and/or pregancy?
  5. Is there an objective and fair way to balance the will of both the male and female regarding a conceived feotus, even when in opposition to each other?
  6. Since both male and female are required to conceive a child, do they each get an equal stake in custody and responsibility? How does this affect parents who did not want to conceive the child?
  7. Is it practical or desireable to legislate any aspect of pregancy?
  8. Is it too complicated for a small group of people to figure out once and for all over the Web?
Each of these questions can really generate virtually endless discussions involving many other aspects of life, since reproduction is the most fundamental aspect of life. Condensing our viewpoints into logical systems would mean lengthy analogies and hypothetical circumstances are not required, but that might be a bit of a pipedream. So, let's put any hostilities aside and concentrate on the issues...many of which I have probably missed out of the list.

 

(EDIT) Fixed some of the grammar errors.

Edited by Cerbera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spoof

 

I don't think the government should have any say in the matter really. But I also don't agree with any of that "woman's choice" crap either. What the fvck happened to the father? Is his opinion completely worthless? It seems so. Modern feminist society loves to scream about "a woman's right to choose", but what if the father doesn't want to keep the baby? He has no say in the matter, and will end up paying child support to a child he didn't want. Or if she aborts, and he did want it, he has no legal recourse available against her killing one of his potential children

 

Half the genetic code, but zero rights if the women wish to abort. God bless equality.

 

 

 

But no, outside of ridiculous religious concerns, the government should have no say in the matter

 

Should have no say, but through legislation dictates the law, which obviously does equate to a “say”, mores the pity.

 

 

We need to address societies attitude towards sex.

 

At the moment abortion is needed. We can't take it away because then there will be an epidemic of young girls that cant cope with their unwanted babies and therefore neglecting them, or claiming benefits etc, which will then become a further strain on society.

 

So seeing as we can't take away the right to an abortion, instead we should try and tackle the need for it in the first place. Proper sex education would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, people are brought up by TV, and so instilling any kind of 'moral' into kids becomes impossible.

 

But either way, casual termination of a casually conceived baby is not the right way to go about it.

 

I realise that teenage pregnancies aren't the only issue here, but they are certainly the most important

 

@Jow – Why haven’t you posted more in D&D? With posts like that, you are much more than welcome smile.gif

 

 

Mortukai, what you must realize is that the man does nothing in the conception of a baby, save for knocking the girl up

 

The child will exist as a function of the genetic codes of both father and mother. Providing half the building blocks for a new life can hardly be described as nothing.

 

 

We could try another way where a mandatory law is introduced, where men at the age of 16 have to take the drug Desogestrel on a daily basis, to render them infertile till they actually plan to have a child.

It's vastly less invasive, more practical, it'd be cheaper & there'd be no more unwanted pregnancies, abortions or vindictive bitches to muddy up a man's day

 

I agree. Apart from the mandatory law bit and if you were to add the concept of choice. However, I would also like to see some longitudinal studies on the possible side effects of the drug you mentioned. There is also the issue of the age you proposed.

 

A great deal of teenage pregnancies are ‘fathered’ by males under the age of 16. Such a law would perhaps not have the impact desired, in fact, it may miss the point sensibly raised by Jow entirely wink.gif

 

 

They don't have the luxury of vindictiveness, especially if she's on a low to medium income

 

I’m hoping that particular comment was tongue in cheek. After all, hell hath no fury like a women scorned!!

 

 

 

I've had an abortion (at 5 weeks) 10 years ago & I've had a child………………………so it irritates me no end when these 'pro-lifers' are usually the first to look down their nose at the people they claim to support………………..………….I'm not against any woman who would never entertain the notion of an abortion, my own mother is one of these women & she gave birth to me at 19. But she supported my decision to terminate, because it was right for me

 

 

Ain’t life complex, to say the least!

 

 

Cerb’s above post outlines a great deal of the pertinent issues on the subject and provides excellent guidance on potential subsequent discussion matter. As he himself notes, the list is by no mean exhaustive.

 

Issues of abortion often involve issues of faith and religious beliefs. Unfortunately, we cannot apply objectivity and rational parameters to such arguments; which leaves the topic wide open to countless approaches and input.

 

 

Everyone can have something to say on this topic, just keep in mind that other members would like an explanation as to why any given member is of that specific opinion.

 

Say what you think, but unless it is given some form of basis – don’t be upset if others can’t see where you are coming from wink.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

I don't normally venture into this forum but felt that not all points are being covered...as I'm a D&D virgin, please be gentle with me.

 

Just one issue that I'm interested in hearing the response to...is what would you expect a woman of any age who has been raped to do if she found herself to be pregnant? Should she be forced to carry the baby to term even though it would be a permanent reminder to her of what she went through, and of how it was conceived? Where would her choice in that?

 

After all is said and done, it's the woman's body and health that is at risk from pregnancy .....preeclampsia can happen to any pregnant female and it's a seriously dangerous issue......some females could live long lives but the added strain on heart etc. can lead to their death during pregnancy.....these things can't be planned for as there's no way to predict what effect a pregnancy would have.

 

If a woman doesn't want to have an unplanned baby, she should be given the choice to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not.

 

BUT I do not hold with the trend among young people today that seem to view abortion as a method of birth control...accidents can happen but to abort just because you had unprotected sex is wrong....practice safe sex always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Just one issue that I'm interested in hearing the response to...is what would you expect a woman of any age who has been raped to do if she found herself to be pregnant? Should she be forced to carry the baby to term even though it would be a permanent reminder to her of what she went through, and of how it was conceived? Where would her choice in that?

I think it's pretty obvious that most people would say that if a woman concieves from a rape then she shouldn't have to carry it to term. The decision to keep a child is one that needs to be made by both parents, and a rapist is hardly available to have input, not that they'd necessarily care anyway.

 

On the other hand, just to confuse the issue for the woman's side, have you eve read a book called Sperm Wars by Robin Baker? It's truly an excellent read, and I highly recommend it to everyone. One might think one knows a lot about reproduction but until one reads the book, one does not know how much one was ignorant of.

 

In particular of relevance to the case of rape, did you know that a woman is far more likely to concieve from a rape than from any other type of sex, even during her least fertile stages of her cycle (except, of course, when she's actually menstruating)? In other words, in response to a rape, a woman is much more likely to ovulate, prematurely or otherwise, in order to get pregnant. Or in other words, her body decides that a man who rapes her is a good choice for genetic material.

 

As I said it's a fascinating book, and you'll never have guessed how fascinating our bodies truly are.

 

 

After all is said and done, it's the woman's body and health that is at risk from pregnancy .....preeclampsia can happen to any pregnant female and it's a seriously dangerous issue......some females could live long lives but the added strain on heart etc. can lead to their death during pregnancy.....these things can't be planned for as there's no way to predict what effect a pregnancy would have.

Did you know that a woman's body has three methods at its disposal to avoid a child if it shouldn't have it? First, it can prevent itself from ovulating. Second, it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus. And third, it can miscarriage at any time. And it never does any of these things randomly. There is always a very good reason, and they are always in the best interest of the mother. Often, they will conlfict with her conscious mind, but her conscious mind is never anything more than a tiny tip of a gigantic iceberg, and is kept largely completely ignorant of pretty much 99.9999% of everything that her mind and body are doing and why.

 

The fact that complications like preeclampsia can occur to any pregnant woman is no argument for abortion, just as the risk of disease isn't an argument against being alive. The best way to avoid preeclampsia may be to abort, and likewise the best way to aviod disease is to kill yourself. Everything in life carries risks. Everything, without exception. Hell, even before pregnancy, the risk of STD's can mean the risk of becoming sterile, as STDs account for over 50% of all cases of permanent infertility. If you'd risk permanent sterility for a romp in the hay, would you risk pregnancy complications for a child of your own? Many people do. In fact, you have too. Hence you are known as Cerbera'sMum.

 

 

If a woman doesn't want to have an unplanned baby, she should be given the choice to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not.

If a man doesn't want to have an unplanned baby, he should be given the choice to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not.

 

The facts of the matter are very simple. Nature designed each gender with its own role to play in the reproduction of the species. Each gender tries to get the best genes to mix with its own for the betterment of its future generations and reproductive success. To this end, reproduction has become fiercely competitive, with a female's body literally fighting against a male's sperm and promoting sperm warfare between multiple males (hence the extremely high occurance of infidelity) so that the victor (superior genes) will win her egg. When a woman gets pregnant (which is a thing most likely when she has been raped, second most likely when she has been unfaithful, and third most likely when she is fvcking her partner), any man that fertilizes her egg earned that right according to her own body. It is literally impossible for a man to get a girl pregnant if her body doesn't want him to, and her body has myriad ways of exercising this ability, which it uses almost constantly. So if she gets pregnant, her body is declaring that the child is worthy and should be born. If circumstances change for the worse, her body has many ways it can abort the baby on its own (like like a man's body has ways to avoid getting a girl pregnant if he can't afford a baby). All these things are completely unconscious, but evolved over millions and millions of years, being present in our ancestors long before we had the need to refine them. They evolved to work for our best interests, whether we are conscious of it or not.

 

When a woman gets pregnant, the man earned his child fair and square. If she can't afford to keep the baby, her body is in the best position to decide this and will do so all on its own. Our conscious minds are both ignorant of almost everything that is happening in our minds, and are also often in conflict with them simply because we consciously lack the huge volume of information that our subconscious minds are processing. In other words, our conscious minds are far more likely to be WRONG than they are likely to be right when there is a conflict with our subconsciouses.

 

A baby is a living human the moment the egg is fertilised. That blastocyst will become a fully grown human if it is not killed. With sufficient technology, it can and will even become a fully grown human independant of the mother. That growing human is the child of both parents. The man's body earned it, and the woman's body decided it was the best thing.

 

Aborting a baby artificially is going against her own body, and denying a man what he earnt. Both parent's lose reproductive success. Reproduction is the single most important goal for any living creature, and they have evolved incredibly complex and intelligent methods for ensuring the best reproductive success. Survival is merely something that must be done in order to reproduce. Survival without reproduction is meaningless.

 

Finally I'll leave you all with an analogy: Imagine you are an employer (a woman), and you have an employee (a man) working for you for a week. They are a good employee, and they beat out many other potential employees for their position. They work hard for a week. But at the end of the week, you decide that you don't want to pay them, because you figure giving up some of your money is enough of a loss that you think it's better to keep that money than pay your employee. You think this, despite the fact that it is naturally better to pay him because in doing so you are ensuring continued hard work and thus continued productivity for both you and your employee. This is how the economy works after all. But no, in your infinite wisdom (selfish irrational ignorance) you decide to not pay your employee, who then leaves and you have no more employee, lose productivity as a result, and your business dies.

 

(note that in the above analogy, "you" always refers to the hypothetical employer, and not anyone reading this)

 

Saying "woman's body, woman's choice" denies a man's contribution and worth to reproduction just as much as, if not more than, the employer in that analogy. Any argument in favour of this position is just as ridiculous and prejudiced as any argument that men should use woman as chattel and rant "man's sperm, man's choice".

 

Both men and woman have their own natural pre-ordained (by nature, not "god") roles in life. Each must act according to those roles, and each are different. But each also contribute equally in the end. Women may have to carry a baby for 9 months, but men have to jump through ridiculous hurdles all their lives just to get the chance at getting a woman to carry their baby for 9 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moto

 

Mortukai, what you must realize is that the man does nothing in the conception of a baby, save for knocking the girl up. The woman, on the other hand, has to change her entire lifestyle to accomodate the baby, something the man would never understand. Now, the man sees no problem his lifes a breeze. Obviously this is a one-sided process, so why should the decision not be one-sided as well?

Goddamn boy, has no-one taught you about the birds and the bees? The next person who says "it's her life, it's her decision" is gonna get smacked in the face with a fish by me. Making a baby requires TWO people, a male and a female. It is a process that has evolved over millions of years. Logically, only one of those parents can gestate the developing baby (although some sort of lego system where each parent gestates half and they combine when they are born could be feasible I guess). But in all cases, the baby is a product of both the father and the mother, each one responsible equally for half of the child's genetic make-up.

Equal for the conception, but how could you possibly say they're equal in the gestation? I realize I got my terms incorrectly in my first post, but it's obvious what I meant if you would simply open your eyes.

 

And keep your "boy's" to yourself. They aren't needed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Equal for the conception, but how could you possibly say they're equal in the gestation? I realize I got my terms incorrectly in my first post, but it's obvious what I meant if you would simply open your eyes.

Because like it or not, the single most common scenario is that while a mother is enjoying all the benefits of gestation (see earlier posts by me), the father is supporting her and the baby, which is also a thing that he will most llikely be doing for a good proportion of their lives.

 

Actually, I lie. THE most common scenario is a male unknowingly supporting other men's children while the mother is enjoying gestating them.

 

This is because biologically, women are programmed to find two men: a long term provider, and a man with superior genes to father her children. Of course, the "second" man is usually more like a dozen or so men (not that she concieves with all of them). Women have more sex with their partners while they are infertile, and more sex with their lovers while they are fertile. They also manipulate their orgasms and the amount of their partner's sperm inside them in order to give their lover the greatest chance of success in fertilizing her egg. Everything about a woman's biology and subsequent behaviour is specialized into tricking a beta male into providing for children an alpha male concieves. Statistically, only the second child has a good chance of being her partner's: the first and third are more likely to be her lover's, and every child after the third has a growing chance to be her lover's.

 

And this is ignoring all the things men must do to earn her sex in the first place. Women do practically zilch to earn sex. Make-up and shaving their legs and armpits and shopping for the latest fashions all in an attempt to peacock themselves hardly qualifies as earning sex. All they are really doing is trying to intimidate the weaker males and attract the best alpha males. Men have to learn a hell of a lot about sex, they have to learn how to pass all her tests (of which there are many and constant), they have to gain status, power, wealth, confidence, courtship knowledge, fearlessness, complete emotional control, etc, etc. or at least as many of these as possible. All these things must be learnt/gained through life and experience and hard work. Women are born with beauty (discounting cosmetic surgery, which I abhore for the fact that it is lying about genetic fitness) and all the necessary instincts to test their men.

 

In the mating game, several millions of years of evolution always ensures that things balance out. If it was easier for men than it was for women, then women would evolve more control in order to avoid being impregnated by inferior genes, which would lead to the genetic fitness of the species declining. If it was easier for women than it was for men, then their natural proclivity towards choosing only the best male would mean that very few males would have all the women, and the gene pool would shrink, again reducing quality. But we've struck a balance, so that overall, each contributes equally, so that reproduction is hard enough that the weak lose, and not too hard that even the strong couldn't win. There will never be absolute equality so long as there are two genders, and to assume there could be would be patently naive. Each gender is highly specialised in complementary and competitive roles. Women can't be men any more than men can be women. Neither is more special than the other, neither is more necessary than the other, and neither suffers more than the other (on the whole). To tip the scales in any one side over the other is inviting problems, and is arrogantly assuming that any individual consciously knows better than the entire evolution of our species and the huge weight of their subconscious mind.

 

Call me pessimistic, but I don't think people are that smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StewMitch

This is because biologically, women are programmed to find two men: a long term provider, and a man with superior genes to father her children. Of course, the "second" man is usually more like a dozen or so men (not that she concieves with all of them). Women have more sex with their partners while they are infertile, and more sex with their lovers while they are fertile. They also manipulate their orgasms and the amount of their partner's sperm inside them in order to give their lover the greatest chance of success in fertilizing her egg. Everything about a woman's biology and subsequent behaviour is specialized into tricking a beta male into providing for children an alpha male concieves. Statistically, only the second child has a good chance of being her partner's: the first and third are more likely to be her lover's, and every child after the third has a growing chance to be her lover's.

Mort has officially dissuaded me from marriage. Ever. I dunno whether to thank you or curse you. Whatever.

 

Anyway, abortion. Look, all I got say is we can run circles and trade broadsides about the whole father's right and or mother's right to choose, but in reality, shouldn't the choice be the child's? Granted, it can't communicate, but with the reasoning that since it's in the womb of the mother, it's her decision. So she can abort. Problem is, doesn't this reasoning allow for the interpretation that a parent has the right to revoke their progeny's right to life at any stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

 

I don't think the government should have any say in the matter really.

 

So who should make the decision on family planning policies? You?

 

 

But I also don't agree with any of that "woman's choice" crap either.

 

Oh God, anything but that. The sky might fall & life would end as we know it.

 

 

What the fvck happened to the father? Is his opinion completely worthless? It seems so.

 

Well how it seems & how it is are two very different things.

 

 

Modern feminist society loves to scream about "a woman's right to choose".

 

That's right, it's not enough to just blame 'Society' anymore, we have to blame 'Modern Feminist Society'now.

Damn those pesky femmos with their fight for the vote, equal pay & legal right to choose, doing it all without starting a war too, how irritating. Please stop ranting about the 'equality of men', we still live in a world where women live under house arrest for committing the crime of having a vagina. You've got no idea what equality is about. FYI - It's not about "Well men hit men, so we can hit women! That'd be equal!"

Treating each other badly to 'even the score' does not equality make.

 

 

but what if the father doesn't want to keep the baby? He has no say in the matter, and will end up paying child support to a child he didn't want. Or if she aborts, and he did want it, he has no legal recourse available against her killing one of his potential children.

 

Well if your system were put in place, essentially a woman forced to give birth against her will would have no say in the matter either.

If men started screaming for the rights that count, instead of the petty 'Too much money' whine, they'd be taken more seriously. They should be demanding better & more father friendly work enviorments, better access to children, more flexibility with shared custody & exemption from maintenance in the instance of a conception resulting from a proven one-night stand or conception by deception. If I were a father, I'd pay anything if it meant I got to have a better relationship with my child, bitter ex wife or not.

At any rate, if the argument based on 'genetic code' could stand up on it's own, then it stands to reason that it doesn't cease to be the man's genentic code simply because he doesn't want to be involved. Once again, a two way street.

Or better yet, sperm is attacked upon entering a woman's uterus, therefore, the spermazoa that breaks through is a rogue, not unlike a virus breaking through an immune system, thus a mistake. The arguments could fly for and against left, right & center if based on the conception itself. All ridiculous, all

semantics, all detached & devoid of acknowledging longterm consequences.

 

If we're going to play 'Extreme Genetics'. Why not just get men to store as much sperm as they can, get a vasectomy & use the stored sperm for insemenation when planning a family?

No? No, I don't think so either, that & forcing women to be pregnant somehow seems a tad ....sick.

 

So, without trying to dodge, without trying beat your chest with the overused 'feminazi' diatrobe, explain exactly you would propose that this enforced pregnancy....be enforced? Imprisonment?

Actually, don't bother, I don't think anyone would have the energy for another round of 'Why Women Are Evil.'

 

 

I think it should be patently obvious that both parents should be required to decide if the baby is aborted or not. Or at the very least, if the father doesn't want the child, and the mother decides to keep it, the father should be absolved of any responsibility to support that child. If a woman wants to have her choice, she bloody well better deal with the responsibilities and repurcussions of that choice, without forcing someone else to carry the burden of her decision.

 

Once again, I have to point out the obvious, in the case of conception, where a 50/50 genetic share is involved, there has to be a deal breaker. The idea that men have no say is ludricrous, people all day, every day, discuss this very thing together, but ultimately, like any major decision that needs to be made, only one has the final say, otherwise conversations would never end. It stands to reason then that the person with the greater personal burden, physically or mentally, should be the one to make that final call.

It's not a matter of equality, it's a matter of practicality.

 

Your point of absolving the father of financial responsibilty if he never intended pregnancy would be a valid one, if it weren't for the other conditions you set enforcing a woman into an unwanted pregnancy because he wants a child.

Put simply, it's not enforcable & high risk. Unnenforcable in that woman need not tell anyone she's pregnant, high risk if a woman meets with physical and/or mental complications or unstability during the pregnancy or birth.

I wouldn't want to be the defendant's lawyer in that courtroom if a woman's death resulted from complications.

 

 

But no, outside of ridiculous religious concerns, the government should have no say in the matter.

 

Why should a person's personal spiritual belief for or against abortion be deemed ridiculous? Because it's not your belief?

 

 

Simple, the mother carries the baby to term and then the father gets sole custody of it once it is born. The mother then loses all rights to that child and doesn't have to pay any child support for it (as if your laws would ever make that a reality anyway).

 

Exactly the same as if the genders were reversed.

 

Who pays for the medial fees? Which court will make such speedy decisions within the accepted time frame of abortion? Who straps the woman to a table for nine months to ensure she doesn't abort or self harm?

Have you even thought through the many complex implications before embracing such an over simplified, cruel & unnusual solution to 'genetic equality?'

 

 

Goddamn boy, has no-one taught you about the birds and the bees? The next person who says "it's her life, it's her decision" is gonna get smacked in the face with a fish by me. Making a baby requires TWO people, a male and a female. It is a process that has evolved over millions of years.

Logically, only one of those parents can gestate the developing baby (although some sort of lego system where each parent gestates half and they combine when they are born could be feasible I guess).

 

Wait, the notion that men & women could share a gestation period is feasible to you, but when I point out current trials running for the male pill, you jump up & down claiming it to be impossible or unsafe?

 

 

But in all cases, the baby is a product of both the father and the mother, each one responsible equally for half of the child's genetic make-up. Neither male nor female chose to be the gender that they are, nor did they earn it, so neither can claim special priviledges over their role in the natural propogation of the species.

 

But they can choose how they wish to use or not use their reproductive system. A man can choose to use a condom, effectively avoiding the possibilty of unwanted fatherhood, a woman can choose to use the pill, a man can choose to volunteer to test a new form of contraception, woman can choose to carry a pregnancy through to term & raise a child, a woman can choose to terminate legally, any person can essentially choose whether or not they pro-create, unless these choices are stripped away by the beliefs

of others. Couples can choose to discuss what they would do in the event they found themselves pregnant.

 

 

Therefore, any child which is conceived is logically equally owned by both parents. As an analogy, consider a shareholder in a business who bought 50% of the business when it started. They may not run the business day-to-day, but they still own half of it by virtue of their contribution. Or, as a

humorous example, consider this joke: A man and a woman were contesting custody over their child in court. The judge asked the woman to explain why she should keep the child, and she responded "Your honour, I carried this baby in my womb for nine months, providing it with the energy and resources it needed to grow and live, therefore I should have custody". The judge nodded, and asked the man to present his case. The man thought for a second, and said "Your honour, if I put 50c into a drink machine, and a can of Coke comes out, does the can belong to me, or the machine?". The judge gave custody to the man.

 

Well a child isn't 'owned' at all, people don't generally choose to raise a child because they believe they 'possess' it, or because they think "Damn, your pregnant? But that's half my genetic code you got there! Now give it to me!".

We're talking about a life long committment, not an accessory. I think there are enough parents using their children as bargaininig chips as it is, your system wouldn't exactly improve matters, to say the least.

Also, it'd be interesting to watch a father explain to his child how "...mummy didn't want a baby so we strapped her to a table to make sure she did."

Now there's really lovely bedtime story to tell.

I have to assume this is the only feasible method to make an unwilling woman give birth, because you certainly haven't provided any details.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Naomi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

The point is that both parties are required, and each have an important role. Without the man, the woman could never concieve in the first place. Without the woman, the child could never grow. The baby is the product of both parents, and does not belong solely to one or the other. Therefore killing the baby without the consent of one of the parents is wrong. If the father secretly made the mother drink a concoction that would abort the baby when she wanted to keep it, no-one would argue that he was in the

right. But for some reason people have no problem if a woman kills the baby when the father wants it.

 

If men really care about their rights as a 'potential father', then where are they? There's no visible sign of these 'outraged' men anywhere.

For all your harping on about feminism, there's no denying it's existance was made visible by men & women who felt strongly enough about certain issues in relation to women. 'Equal rights for women didn't just spring up out of thin air, these things were fought for with time, persistance & logic.

The point is, if men did feel so strongly about issues such as 'potential fatherhood', child payments, paternity leave & sole custody, then why does it seem only reserved for websites & forums?

If men feel so strongly about these matters, maybe they should start being a little more pro-active about them, rather than just assuming someone is going to hand it all to them on a silver platter.

 

 

This is a very good point, which I was going to bring up but you beat me to it But it's not actually 9 months that the woman has to change her lifestyle for. It's only about 3, because for the first 6 months the baby is too small to really make a difference to the mother's mobility. The only other

"lifestyle changes" before that time are exercising less and eating more, and if anyone complains about that, then they can suck my balls. Once she starts "showing", she can't exercise at all really (I mean, she can still do some non-intensive exercises quite easily, but no more running or weight training), and has more trouble sitting down and standing up, but she gets paid leave from work anyway so who gives a fvck? If someone told me I'd have to change my lifestyle so that I had to be lazy, rest, and eat more, I'd

be laughing.

And a week after the baby is born, the mother can go straight back to her old lifestyle.

 

This is the most ridiculous comment to date, and that's really saying something. And there's that unfounded post-adolescent hostility we're all being inflicted with again.

You could just say "I don't like women." It'd be quicker & atleast a person could respect the honesty.

 

 

Seriously Meto, you gotta stop listening to the crap that women go on about re pregnancy and "how hard it is to be a woman", because I was raised by a single mother, and I've lived with several girls, both girlfriends and just friends, and some of my exes now have children (to other men) and I keep in contact with them. All the crap you hear in the media is complete horsesh*t. Being a housewife is the easiset thing in the world (trust me, I've been a "housewife" for many accumulated years),and having babies is only a minor inconvenience for a couple of months followed by several hours of excruciating pain, but once it's over, her body is flooded with endorphins and other hormones, which completely offsets the pain and is why you see mothers smiling and being so happy once the baby is born (it's an

evolutionary trick to ensure she doesn't kill the baby or neglect it after her pain).

 

My grandmother was a widowed sole parent, my mother was a sole parent for a time & I'm a sole parent too, so I guess, by following your lead here, that makes me the expert now. Right?

You sound like one of those sad souls desperate to be seen as 'cosmopolitan' by stating they..

"met a gay person once" or

"Hey! My next door neighbour is a black guy!".

My son has ben ignored by his father since before birth, so once again, following your train of logic, all men must be like him. Yes? No? Not sure? Doesn't suit your 'angle'? I must be a real thorn in your side, I'm just not playing ball at all. I actually like men & have a healthy attitude towards other people's choices.

 

 

I think this is one of thoce times when we can say two things. 1) She shouldn't have had unprotected sex in the first place. And 2) Stiff sh*t, welcome to nature. Seriously, why should what she wants be valued more than what the father wants? So she doesn't want to carry it to term. He doesn't want his child to be killed. Whose preference takes priority? What it she wants to carry it to term, and he doesn't want it? This is why I ignore selfish concerns, and consider the situation in a higher framework that looks at principles of equality and life. If neither parent wants it, fine, abort the child. If the mother wants it, but the father doesn't, then the father is absolved of responsibility/rights and the mother can carry it to term. If the father wants it, but the mother doesn't, then the father absorbs all responsibility/rights for the child after it is born, and the mother carries it to term, and is then absolved of any responsibilities/rights toward the child.

Or they can just think ahead and use protection ffs. Abortion should never be necessary.

 

Contradictory. On one hand you state a woman should use protection and this is a fair enough in itself.

But then, shouldn't the man aswell? Like you said, it takes two.

Therefore, if a woman doesn't use protection, falling pregnant, the man obviously didn't use protection either.

So let's play devil's advocate here...

It could then be argued in any court, that the man willingly gave his sperm to the woman when he failed to protect himself from the possibilty of pregnancy or the responsbilities therafter, giving up any right to it, whether it result in pregnancy or not, as the act itself was not intended with the sole purpose of proginy, but as recreation.

Now, you might say well she volunteered her egg. Correct. So the argument, being the same on both sides, then cancel each other out. Because for any legal body to make a decision based on exactly the same argument for both sides, would basically result in a 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' decision.

So, the argument would have to go on to risk & burden, who has more to lose if the pregnancy is is seen through to full term?

Obviously the woman.

The physical burden & risk is going to be greater for the woman, no matter how big or small one may believe it to be, because there is no garuntee as to how healthy the woman will be during the gestation period. And the existing life will always take precedence over a foetus.

Also, it will be argued that the man is capable of producing a child again, under more planned & consentual circumstances, thus he has no basis for 'fighting' for an unplanned pregnancy, unwanted by the woman. Unless he can prove that he copulated with the express intention of parenthood & with the woman's consent to become pregnant, then it'd be thrown out of court.

A man in turn must also prove that a woman became pregnant by deception in the case of a de-facto relationship or a one night stand, a woman must prove that the man knew full well that she wasn't protected, that he didn't use a condom & that she didn't 'steal' a used condom to inseminate herself.

 

Another argument that applies to both sides is that of genes...

It's been stated that half of the genes are that of the man's. Correct again. But, it's also half the genetic make-up of the woman, she could argue that she does not want her genes to 'be carried on'. That she doesn't wish to share here genes with that of the man, nor does she wish to have her genetic make-up raised by the man.

Sperm donors give up their rights to it upon donating their sperm. Cases past have been made where sperm donors have attempted to get visitation & custody rights to the resulting children of their donations.

They've often failed.

The very same argument would be made in the instance of consensual sex & an unwanted pregnancy resulting from it

All a woman need say to avoid enforced pregnancy, is that she used a diaphram, but it failed or more likely, just not tell anyone she is infact pregnant.

 

The above scenarios make me tired just looking at them, why on earth would anyone of sound mind think this set-up would be better than just leaving it to a woman to decide is beyond comprehension.

We live in an age where people share custody of household pets. So these scenarios are very possible.

You're entire proposal is full of holes, it could not be realistically or practically enforced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.