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

Naomi

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.

 

Adopted children & ther adoptive families everywhere would beg to differ. Besides, people are finding it difficult to find children to adopt, because their natural parents are raising them. Most adoptive parents now look outside of their own country in order to adopt, in particular, China, where baby girls are

routinely dumped due to the 'one child policy' & the centuries old patriarchal structure of inheritance and worth. It's now gotten to the point where the boy/girl ratio is 8 to 1. The implications are obvious. It's a real example of what happens when such extreme laws are enforced, leaving women with little to no choice in balance their reproductive future. It'll essentially go from bad (overpopulated) to worse, an aging overpopulated society without the next two generations to support it.

 

 

 

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

 

Well, it's nice that you have your ideals, but unfortunately you'll have to deal with the real world. Not all biological parents are fit. Not all biological want their offspring. This is not a new development.

 

 

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.

 

It'd never move to your way of thinking because thankfully, people for the most part are ruled by reason, not bitterness. You really need to tear yourself away from B-grade american soap operas btw.

 

 

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.

 

Do you consult 'The Bitter Man's Little Book Of Cliches" before posting?

Do you think you have a live 'audience'? Oh dear.

If you know that you live in a current system where you can be made to pay child support, you know that you'll have no say in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated, if you really know this to be true, then why play russian roulette? If you're worried about side effects of a male pill, there's a little friend called a condom. There's also abstinance. This is where it screams of "I'm a modern man & the victim now!"

Seems like everyone's a victim nowadays, right down to their genes.

 

You want to believe I'm anti-male despite all the evidence to the contrary. It suits yor narrow veiws to hone in on what I say, pulling a couple of quotes out of context, then failing to understand what was written anyway.

Why are you dodging discussing the practicality & consequences of your 'system' & instead screaming 'PC' & 'feminazi'? You've only come up with child maintenance & the functions of the reproductive systems, as if these somehow explain everything. They're rather hollow, pathetic & easily argued against to the point of rendering them obsolete.

 

Playing to the sympathies of a majority young male 'audience' is also a safe bet, but I think you're upset by the fact that I'm right here, in your face, telling you that I've not asked for or recieved any child care payments, that my son's natural father has made no attempt to contact his son, despite having been in a relationship with me for a considerable time. That 11-12 years ago I discussed the matter of abortion with my then boyfriend at length, that he was supportive, but ultimately left the decision to me.

This must irk you no end, because for all your one-sided generalisations, I've not produced one. Because for all your ridiculous & hostile comments (not one positive thing has been said by you about women), my very existance flies in the face of everything you claim to be fact.

 

I'm a reasonable adult, I know that most men are decent & good people, despite a less than ideal relationship of my own. So pardon me if I feel the need to set you straight.

 

 

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.

 

How about you take a second to behave like an adult?

There are trials being done now, by men who aren't afraid to put their money where their mouth is. It might be bad, so was the pill for women, but someone had to try it to get to this point. But then there will always those who read, and then there will be those who act.

 

 

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.

 

And this little lesson in female biology is relevant because...?

Girls start menstruating from around the age of 13, so hey, being a natural process, let's start putting all those wasted eggs to good use & get them knocked up early. Why bother with the semantics of matters such as choice, ethics, laws, emotion, conscious thought or civility.

Like you keep saying, it's all about what's natural afterall, I'm just following it through to it's natural conclusion.

 

 

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).

 

There is, has been for awhile if you hadn't noticed, condoms, vasectomy, pill, abstinance. Once again, if men know how 'unfair' the 'system' is & don't protect themselves. Then who to blame?

 

 

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.

 

I would type more slowly if I thought it would help you see the irony. You're entire idea is based on the notion that both people must agree to a termination & that under no circumstance can adoption be an option.

The scenario was clear. But I'll reverse it so you can get your dear little noggin around it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

We could try another way where a mandatory law is introduced, where women at the age of 16 have to take the Pill 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 whiney men to muddy up a woman's day.

Ofcourse, this would mean women 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 man'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 man's existence right down to what he does or doesn't do with his testicles.

But wait, there's more...

If a woman failed to take the pill daily, then got impregnated by a man, 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 women 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.

 

 

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)

 

Well you did, I'll remind you....

 

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

 

...whoops.

You're obviously suffering from a little 'short post memory'. You said yourself that adoption is off the table, that atleast one biological parent must raise the child. I'm just upping the ante, going by your lead, 50/50 genetics, so why not 50/50 in parenthood? Throw those two work horses together, it's no more extreme than what you've suggested, hell in some cultures it's law.

And It may surprise you, but I can actually introduce other ideas, notions, beliefs & arguments in here & they don't nessacarily have to be mine.

It's not all about you. Shock horror.

 

 

...implies that men can't be trusted to make the right decision for themselves.

 

Such a scenario would immediatley & obviously be implied by it's very conditions. To mandate pro-creational choices, right down to contraception.

 

 

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.

 

In regards to child payments, yes it does, but you have the issue back to front. You're implying that if by the current system men must pay child support, then essentially women must bear an unwanted child to him if he wants it to raise, it smacks of 'getting even'. The solution could be vastly more simple. That men speak up & get pro-active on the matter, so that any

man not actively involved wit the woman (one-night stand), is exempt from child support.. That women be left to decide for themselves what choice they wish to make & that any man wishing to have children should do so with a willing partner, rather than forcing an unwilling woman to full term.

When you speak of equal rights, you clearly fail to understand what the term represents. Equal rights for men would entail the introduction of paid paternity leave, of accepting that men no longer want to work 80 hour weeks, they want to be with their families so that they can be better husbands & fathers, that some men want to be 'stay at home' dads & shouldn't be vilified for it.

Equal rights for men have nothing to do with a 'woman's choice'. It's always existed, it's always worked.

It's a socilogical fact that worldwide, through the entire history of mankind, women ultimately control the rate of procreation depending on the social climate & ability to raise children, both on a conscious & unconscious level.

You said it yourself...."Stiff sh*t, welcome to nature"

 

By your perception, it's a direct affront or attack, as if there's some great conspiracy by women against men.

 

 

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.

 

Do you think you could quit peppering you responses with censor bypassing obsceneties? It's somewhat difficult to take someone seriously (and it's too difficult already) when they respond so hysterically. You're not even trying to understand, you made up your mind to be as obnoxious & as knee jerk reactionary as possible from the beginning.

 

 

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.

 

Aren't you tired of being wrong yet?

The crimes you've listed can & are being enforced by law & even then, none of these crimes are 'one size fits all', they are crimes by degree. What your suggesting, can be simply dodged by with-holding information, a woman only need keep quiet & abort secretly, rather than openly discuss the matter with

her partner. Essentially all your system would do is drive a wedge between men & women. In the instance where you suggest a woman could abort if raped, she must first prove she was infact raped. A court case would outlast the pregnancy. A woman might even go so far as to lie, saying she was raped, even if she wasn't, in order to abort, so than you've just got an innocent man standing before a court, even then beng proven innocent now means nothing, because his reputation is ruined. I don't find these to be a terribly palatable possibilties.

A law is only enforcable as it practical.

If it were to be made law, what then? Weekly mandatory pregnancy tests? Well?

 

 

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!

 

I've all but handed every conceivable outcome borne from your proposal, the only flawed logic is in your failure to detail how your veiws could conceivably work.

Long live common sense.

 

 

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.

 

Well you did request a complete response. So here it all is, for you're hysterical pleasure.

I "attacked" you?

How dramatic.

I guess I must be oppressing your rights aswell then.

People who aren't upset or angry don't usually feel as if they've been attacked. Interesting choice of word.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

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.

 

You could've just saved yourself yet another big rant by just stating the obvious...

"I can't think of anything to contribute other than cliches."

 

 

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

 

I was actually only giving one of many extreme possibilities people would & have raised over this old debate. I don't want to live in a society that would require men to have mandatory injections or treatments until planning pregnancy any more than I'd want a women to be denied a termination or forced into a termination. We can't pass laws that control every move people make, we have to trust they're going to make the right decisions for themselves, their partners & maintain the options to make them.

 

Legislating anything that has an 'all or nothing' approach has been proven to fail time & time again. Even in times or countries where exceptions have been made for a termination, the court process has gone on for so long, that women/girls have been forced to give birth anyway.

 

 

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!!

 

There are vindictive people in existance, no arguments there, but in my experience, I've seen too many women, (and a male friend, the ex-wife is really quite psychotic) worn down by a with-holding ex who sees the child support as a carrot to hang out for begging. They just don't bother fighting after awhile, they get with their lives instead. But this isn't even supposed to be about child support.

Everyone has had an 'Ex from Hell', everyone has a sad story, everyone's had a lousy experience with the opposite sex in one way or another. But to imply that laws should be passed or changed in order to 'get even' not 'equal' with the opposite sex altogether are both sad & obtuse.

Twisted notions of women should be left to serial killers, not legislation.

 

What I've found most disturbing here is the constant use of words such as "child support", "genetic code" & "possess". Like these somehow outway more important considerations such as a life-long committment & fatherhood.

I think maybe a re-evaluation of priorty & personal motivation are in order.

 

Education is another thing, people are educated, they know what's up, but at the end of the day, women still fall pregnant. It doesn't all magically go away just because it'd be legislated as illegal either. Don't kid yourself, it'd just revert back to the good ol' days of coathangers & back abortionists.

 

 

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.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that some people might disagree, that they might say a life is a life no matter how it was concieved. But hey, let them decide, let you decide, let a judge decide, but don't let a pregnant woman decide.

 

 

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.

 

I just know there's an attempt at a point here somewhere. Rape more women then imprison them for nine months to garuntee the baby prize? Yes? No? Not sure?

It's astounding, you say men men will copulate in order to carry their genes on, then balk at the idea that they may actually be held responsible for their proginy's financial security. You say a woman unconsciously decides whether she accepts pregnancy or not at a biological level, but at the mere suggeston that a woman might choose to do so consciously,you go ballistic, screaming 'equal rights for men'.

 

 

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.

 

I think this is the scene they left on the cutting room floor of 'Titanic'.

 

 

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.

 

Well now, that argument isn't dramatic at all.

 

 

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.

 

But who decides the acceptable risk level? Which is more important, a clump of 6 week old cells, or a mature woman?

Who decides?

Once again, it comes down to a single person's decision no matter how much you try to 'equalise' it.

Does a man have to get a court injunction on a doctor's findings if it's in the woman's favour?

How complicated are you really willing to get in a system already complicated by sperm donors, divorce, custody, DNA patenting, the list goes on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

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.

 

This is like a car crash. It's awful, but you just cant tear your eyes away.

 

 

When a woman gets pregnant, the man earned his child fair and square.

 

Hey fellas! Step right up! Come inside a woman successfully & you'll win a prize!

 

 

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.

 

"Hello. Uterus? Yeah hi, it's me, look I'm in a bit of a pickle, my wage is low, my health is questionable & I'm just not ready to be a mother for the rest of my life. I would really appreciate it if you & you're muscles could work together to expel that clump of cells you're hanging onto, if you could manage that I'd really appreciate it, I'll even throw in some of those new tampons you like so much.

Thanks"

 

 

Our conscious minds are both ignorant of almost everything that is happening in our minds,

 

Correction. 'You'. You are ignorant to everything going onin the real world.

 

 

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.

 

Well I know I'm in conflict. I'm conflicted about deciding whether to feel sorry for you or laugh at you.

 

 

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.

 

It's aborting a foetus. You know, that clump of cells that has all the trademarks of a parasite.

Tumours are natural, guess people should keep those otherwise they'll be 'Going Against Nature.'

Whether they want it or not is irrelevant. It's natural.

What he "earnt"? Oh yes that's right, achieving an orgasm would be hard work, what was I thinking?.

 

 

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.

 

And....?

 

 

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)

 

I spoke too soon.This is the worst analogy in existance.

 

 

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.

 

You're assuming all men & women are as bitter & dysfunctional as you. Believe it or not, most men & women work this situation out between themselves without the need of a system that requires everyone to go to court, argue to the point of exhaustion & be as miserable as humanly possible.

 

 

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".

 

Translation: Anyone who dares to point out my obvious distain, distrust & bitterness towards women in general will be met with one of my obscenity peppered rants.

 

 

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.

 

Why not God? Are you the resident expert on the meaning of life now? I'm an atheist, but unlike you, I don't feel compelled to trample all over other people's beliefs or choices (even if they don't share mine) in order to feel 'equal'.

 

 

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.

 

Pure comedy.

Guess I should've contributed such cliched gems such as "All men are bastards", "All men walk away from responsibilty unless forced into it by law", "Men cause all the wars & all the violence & all the woes of the world. Boo Hoo."

I must really dissapoint you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

 

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.

 

Call me optimistic, but I don't think you'll ever be taken seriously.

It's not so much your lame 'equality solution' that's so sad, but the fact that its the best you could come up with & that you hang on to it for dear life.

You've failed on all counts.

Stop. Now.

Well after providing all the arguments you insisted upon, I'm done.

No doubt there'll be a little temper tantrum followed up soon, but my 'biological maternal tolerance' for it is now at it's thresh hold.

So rant away.

I'm off now to have my legs & intimidate some other lesser male on an unconscious level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naomi

EDIT - Dead post. Server 'hiccup'.

Edited by Naomi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Naomi, you are, without a doubt, the single worst debater I've ever encountered. Your last eight, yes, EIGHT posts in a row absolutely reeked of hysterical reactionary bullsh!t. You attacked more straw men than I've ever seen in my years of online debating on multiple forums, and you threw in more ad hominem attacks than I've seen in such a compressed space. You spiced things up a bit with some slippery slope arguments, made numerous appeals to pity, consequences, and popularity, delivered invariably with prejudicial language. I saw an unrepresentative sample in there, some slothful inductions and some fallacies of exclusion. Peppered throughout were some joint effects and complex causes you begged the question a few times, made numerous fallacies of ambiguity, and I think I even saw you deny the antecedent.

 

I can't believe I actually wasted 30 minutes of my life reading that crap.

 

Without a doubt: Worst. Debater. Ever.

 

Is this your new tactic? To present your "arguments" in an unreadable form and fill them with so many logical errors so as to cause me to either give up or admit defeat? Are you that patently fvcking retarded? Do you have any idea who I am? Have you ever spent any significant period of time in the D&D forum? Do you know who you are dealing with?

 

Let me introduce you to your opponent:

 

My name is Benjamin O'Neal. I'm 23 yrs old. My father was an entreprenuer when he met my mother, who was a professional figure skater. They married when my mum was 21 and I was a honeymoon baby. My brother was born a year and a half after I was. My mother divorced my father after just over 2 years when he threw me down a flight of stairs because I punched him in the nuts after I saw him hit my mum for the first time. When I was 5, on a routine visitation with my father, he didn't bring me back and the police found me two days later severely dehydrated. That was the last I saw of him for many years. When I was 6, my mother remarried, and had a daughter to my step-father. Then a sone two years later, then another daughter anothre 2 years later, and then another daughter 2 years later still. During this time, my step-father became increasingly violent towards myself and my full-brother, and then directed this violence towards my mother. It got particularly bad after he sent us bankrupt trying to start a private army by taking out mortgages and using the money to buy weapons for him and his ex-army friends. I've been beaten many, many times. Highlights include being thrown across the loungeroom by my left ear when I was 8 (the scar fully healed when I was 16), being locked in the toilet for 48 hours with no food, and having my hand being held over a lit cigarette lighter for ten seconds. I've seen all my siblings beaten more times than I can remember, like seeing my 4 yr old brother punched across the kitchen into the fridge. For the last 6 years of my mum's marriage to my step-father, up until I was 13, I heard my mum screaming from behind closed doors pretty much every single day, as my step-father beat, yelled at, and raped her. Sometimes he would take her away for days, even up to 2 weeks at a time, and I'd be left to care for my five brothers and sisters. We moved house and I changed schools at least 7 times during that marriage, each time to a progressively worse house and neighborhood, until we ended up in government housing. The last day I saw my step-father was when he came home, kicked the front door off its hinges, dragged my mum and second youngest sister (who my mum was holding) into the bathroom, and tried to rape and drown her. I was in the hallway listening, helpless to do anything but keep the other children away from him, which was often my job. Somehow my mother escaped and ran naked to the house next door where she called the police. He came out and dragged me to the car to look for her in the streets. I would have fought back but I was just relieved that he was there with me away from my brothers and sisters. After that, we moved again, changed our names, and continued our life in poverty living on welfare with a single mum and 6 kids. As a teenager I spent most nights each week breaking into cars and warehouses, and occasionally rest-houses for truckies. Other nights were simply spent getting drunk with friends and fvcking girls. When I was 16 I dropped out of high school and got into contact with my real father, and at first things were great. He'd remarried and soon had a daughter who is now my youngest sister. Pretty soon though it appeared that he was exactly like my mother had described him: a total asshole. He treated his wife like dirt, constantly referring to her as "stupid" and "woman". He never hit her, but he was very abusive in terms of neglect and emotional/verbal abuse. He was also still seeing prostitutes regularly. I guessed she stayed with him because he had a high paying job owning his own networking business. So I cut off all contact with him because I detested him and everything he stood for. At 17 I fell in love and moved in with my girlfriend. I finished my yr12 at a tertiary college, and got a UAI (University Admissions Index) of 99.00, which meant I could get into any subject I wanted except law and vetinary school at some universities. I also could have gotten a complete scholarship if I'd applied for one six months before I new my results, but I didn't think I'd be getting that high, and coming from the poor environment I did, I never even knew about them. I decided that I wanted to become a child psychologist, so that I could help children in situations like those I grew up in. Two years into my psych degree, I decided I might try for medicine, so that I could become a child psychiatrist instead of a psychologist. I took the UMAT (undergraduate medicine admissions test) and got 97%, but was then informed that the AMA (australian medical association) had a policy that they didn't accept any TAFE qualifications, which rendered my yr 12 qualifications null, meaning as far as they were concerned, I'd never finished year 10, and couldn't get into medicine until I went back to secondary school. I thought "Fvck that", and continued my psych degree. Then my girlfriend of three years cheated on me, we broke up, and I moved away but continued my degree. My minors included biology, physics, chemistry, and philosophy, and I had a Distinction average throughout uni with very little effort or preparation for exams and assignments. When studying "intelligence and intelligence testing" I discovered I had an IQ of 152 according to the R-WEIS III, and on Raven's Progressive Matrices I score 100%. I excel at pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, and verbal logical reasoning, but I'm weakest at arithmetic. Almost every day for the last 6 months since graduating, I've read countless papers and articles and books covering topics ranging from philosophy (mainly existentialism), to physical science (mainly astronomy, quantum physics, and special relativity), from psychology (mainly gender and behaviourism) to biology (mainly evolutionary biology). from handwriting analysis to graphology (mainly as pick up gimmicks, 'cos chicks love all that bullsh*t and it's funny watching their reactions), and from ethics (see the thread in this forum for my conclusions) to art theory (I'm also an artist). I've just now finished a teacher training course, because I've decided I want to be a teacher of adults, most likely teaching art, because it pays well and I really enjoy it and probably know more about art than any other subject (and that's saying a lot).

 

So that's a summary of some of the main things which define who I am. As to your assumptions that I hate women, you are very wrong. It used to be that I hated men immensely, and felt a kind of shame for being one. But then I grew up and started learning about reality. As to your assumptions that I don't know what equality is, I think you'll find that not only is your reasoning absent or severely flawed, but that equality is something that I can argue for well enough to earn me High Distinctions in essays written in three hours with no study.

 

Your attempt to play the "you must hate women" card is infantile in the extreme, and reflects a total lack of logical reasoning. You paint anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy who must hate your entire gender. Well then my mum must also hate women, becuase she doesn't agree with abortion, and in fact sides with me in my argument because I'd developed it long ago in discussions with her. But then again, she is pretty intelligent in most things.

 

Trust me Naomi, you are nothing to me. I've debated with far greater thinkers than you over far more contentious issues and won. I've trumped professors in their own lectures. But they at least had the good grace and intelligence to admit defeat and integrate my arguments into their own. I've experienced far greater events in my life than abortion could ever present. And yet I've encountered it many times with girlfriends and families.

 

You think you are being clever, but all I see is hysterical ranting. For eight consecutive posts; most of which is redundant and irrelevant, and the remainder is poorly thought out and misdirected.

 

If you want to debate with me. Try this: Find some of my key arguments, just a handful (there are only a handful, the rest are merely interesting "flavour"). Locate the premises and conclusions of these arguments (there will be, as there always are, hidden premises). Counter the premises, or show that the conclusions do not follow from the premises. I have done so for you in my first reply to you.

 

But here's the important thing: leave out the irrelevant personal attacks. No, I don't "feel" attacked. I'm not a woman. I objectively identify word strings which create implicit or explicit meaning which can be identified as being hostile or with a negative intent. I term these for what they are: attacks. Like, and this is only for example: "You are the dumbest b!tch I've ever encountered in an online forum". That would be an attack regardless of how you feel about it, because the meaning and intent is clearly negative to anyone with association cortex. Just as much as your last 8 posts were largely attacks against me, rather than against any arguments I have made.

 

And for the record, you might want to get your eyes checked, because in all the posts I've made to this topic, I've never once suggested that any of my propositions become laws. In fact, I've been working under the condition that the government have no say in abortions, thus no legislation. Instead I am working under the assumptions of people making informed rational and fair decisions of their own accord. This is because I am reasoning at around stage 5/stage 6 on Kohlberg's ethical reasoning scale, and not around stage 1 or 4, which is were laws are required. You probably can't see this because you are reasoning at stage 3/stage 2, and thus cannot identify my higher order reasoning for what it is, and so must interpret it within your inferior framework. This isn't your fault, any more than a child with Down Syndrome is at fault for being as it is. But it is important that I point our that how you interpret things and how things really are, in this case, vastly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BenMillard

Naomi, that's pretty much what I was trying to say but I couldn't find the words for it. Ten hours well spent. Just to refresh my memory after reading all that, the discussion was about who gets to decide whether or not an abortion happens. Being a computer programmer from a young age, I'm going to try and make things a bit more focused to hopefully avoid more spiteful rambling from Mort about how all women are adolterous incubators.

 

Mort, the incredible irony of you lecturing Naomi about the evils of personal attacks by making an enormous personal attack against her and telling everyone how brave you are as you're the real-life "Good Will Hunting" is the sort of melodrama which most people have the good taste to avoid adding to D&D. "Too ironic for words" that you dedicate an entire post to attacking Naomi as a person rather than the genuine and rational analysis of the ideas being presented in the thread. Maybe take your own advice and stick to the subject; identify the "key arguments" and "locate the premises and conclusions" so that you can "counter the premises, or show that the conclusions do not follow from the premises" instead of trying to blackmail people agreeing into with you out of sympathy for your tough life. K?

 

Some effects of pregnancy:

 

Syptom Effect on Male Effect on Female
Increase in size and mass Does not occur in male. Causes acute stress to joints and skin, often leaving permanent scarring and damage.
Sickness Does not occur in male. Regular vomiting, headaches, nausia, migranes, etc.
Incapacity Does not occur in male. Restricted mobility severely limits available means of recreation and socialising.
Biological and hormonal shifts Does not occur in male. Rollercoaster of emotions; easily triggered unhappyness.
Childbirth Does not occur in male. Considerable discomfort for many hours followed by excruciating pain, severe (and lasting) distortion of extremely sensitive tissues.
Health risks STDs during conception. STDs during conception, plus vulnerability to disease. Additionally, medications and cures have to be used with extreme care. This worry about ensuring the health of the offspring must create a massive pyschological strain.
Worry Limited presence in male; a desire to see the female sucessfully deliver the child. A constant source of stress where every action has to be considered to assess possible risks to the embryo.
The effects between conception to birth are very much against the female. There is an enormous physical burden present on the woman during pregancy compared to a practically unchanged physical state in the male. As such one cannot use arguments based on "equality" since the process is inherently biassed: Only one gender becomes pregnant and gives birth.

 

With that established, one can consider the object which is under threat of abortion. Although this is potentially a human there are several mechanisms which can destroy it, systematically and pragmatically. Mort, myself an Naomi have all mentioned this previously so we presumably all accept that there can be a biological necessity for the embyro to be terminated. Since human physiology is not a perfect mechanism, it may be the case that sometimes an embryo is terminated accidentally and conversely that an embryo might not be terminated when this is, in fact, the best option.

 

Since no males I know of have any reservation about destroying millions of sperm daily, the view must be that the loss of reproductive material is not a problem. Since the male system can produce a new batch of sperm well within a matter of hours, losing a batch is somewhat insignificant. Since most males leap at the opportunity to rely on the female's pregnancy prevention pill to enjoy sex without a condom, there must also be the view that ejecting the reproductive material into the female reproductive system does not automatically require that sperm to fertilise an ovum and create a child. Indeed, quite often the sperm will not even reach an ovum despite their best efforts.

 

This shows that simply donating reproductive material doesn't create any requirement for that material to become a child. Indeed, creating a child is normally the last thing the male desires.

 

 

Therefore it is not a matter which can be decided automatically through the local biology. Instead, the decision must be made according to environmental factors and the desires of both parties. A simple logic table shows the possible scenarios and the logical resolution regarding the desires. After an ovum has been fertilised:

 

Desire of Male Desire of Female Resolution
Does want embyo to develop. Does want embyo to develop. Allow ovum to develop.
Does want embyo to develop. Does not want embyo to develop. Since males lose sperm with great frequency anyway, the embyo can be aborted without any party losing anything important. The embryo loses its life but since it is extremely primative (a tiny bunch of cells) it will have no awareness of this.
Does not want embyo to develop. Does want embyo to develop. Male can be absolved of responsibility. If the embyro develops and is born it will have an absent biological parent (or two if it is given for adoption) but it does have life.
Does not want embyo to develop. Does not want embyo to develop. Ovum can be terminated. It is too primative to be aware of its destruction.
The logic is clear: The male has little say over whether the embryo develops because his role was insignificant relative to the long-term role and severe physical hardship required for the female to carry the child. Basically, nobody of any gender need to be forced into parenthood since embryos are pretty easy to create, unaware of their death and therefore expendable. Edited by Cerbera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

Holy sh*t, Mort, saying all of that has opened up a new side of you. I really don't know what to say. It's insane what you've been through and possibly (not meaning to sound rude) but get help. All of that is truly terrible...and the psychological impact it must of had on you must be immense...

Edited by Lazzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jersiq

 

Since no males I know of have any reservation about destroying millions of sperm daily, the view must be that the loss of reproductive material is not a problem. Since the male system can produce a new batch of sperm well within a matter of hours, losing a batch is somewhat insignificant. Since most males leap at the opportunity to rely on the female's pregnancy prevention pill to enjoy sex without a condom, there must also be the view that ejecting the reproductive material into the female reproductive system does not automatically require that sperm to fertilise an ovum and create a child. Indeed, quite often the sperm will not even reach an ovum despite their best efforts.

 

This shows that simply donating reproductive material doesn't create any requirement for that material to become a child. Indeed, creating a child is normally the last thing the male desires.

O.K. now I am really confused how you "elite" debators decide one day to use one tactic, when before you have renounced it. It seems like you are working from "common sense" here, yet in another debate thread you said:

 

Common sense doesn't exist. Have you talked to all six and a half billion people on the planet to establish what common knowledge all of them share? Have you put your results online for us to look through? I imagine it would be rather a large download but I'm sure those of us dedicated to truth and reason would put up with waiting for your unique global study.

Or maybe we could just say that I misread it? dozingoff.gif

 

Now I agree a little bit on some level with Mortukai regarding the man's rights. Pain is relative between humans. While some woman may feel symptoms of pregnancy, some don't. (I am in no way minimalizing what a woman must go through, as currently my wife is very sickly pregnant) Nevertheless, I think what is missing from the chart is the man who has difficulty conceiving (they do exist, that's why they have male fertility doctors which kind of destroys the argument that all men produce viable sperm in incredible volumes), who in turn has a partner who has a change of heart after conception.

 

Applying logic to a humanistic debate is sort of like fitting a square peg into a round hole. There are so many seperate cases regarding abortion with individuality stamped all across them. I think each case should be handled individually, however this is wishful thinking as Naomi has pointed out the litigation process often surpasses the gestation period.

 

Mort, the incredible irony of you lecturing Naomi about the evils of personal attacks by making an enormous personal attack against her and telling everyone how brave you are as you're the real-life "Good Will Hunting" is the sort of melodrama which most people have the good taste to avoid adding to D&D.

 

Too ironic that you also resort to publicly posting a personal admonishment that may be better suited for a PM. A more tasteful approach, perhaps is to remove the sarcastic comments and be done with it. If you truly want to allow cooler heads to prevail a good rule of thumb is "praise in public and punish in private" It works in the corporate world and should very well work here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrassKnuckles

The foray into Mort's personal history was certainly interesting, but I can't help but think it was nothing more than an extended intimidation tactic. Not to sound condescending, but you're better than that. An observer might even think you feel threatened. Perhaps beaten.

 

Feel free to come after me. I'm no professor.

 

I did find some humor is your contention that men 'earn' their children, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D Jones

Abortions are just wrong.

 

Say you try to commit suicide, and you fail. You will get in a lot of trouble and probably a mental hospital. But I don't see this any different than Abortions. Your killing something that you made, if it was a accident or not its your baby and you should take responseability(sp) for it or at least give it to foster care after it is born.

 

I say Abortions should be banned. Its just not right killing something that has a lot of potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum
Abortions are just wrong.

 

I say Abortions should be banned. Its just not right killing something that has a lot of potential.

Just a short comment as I'm not a debater of this forum's quality....'.Abortions are just wrong' is pretty widespread.....what about the scenario were it's proved (amniocentesis shows that there is some deformity in the embryo that could lead to disability in life...spina bifidia....heart disease....mental incapacity.....distortions...etc.... should that family not be given the right to choose whether to proceed or not with the pregnancy?

 

I'm not in favour of abortion simply because I couldn't do that...I have always believed in preventing myself from having to make such hard decisions.....birth control pill, expecting male to wear condom or quite simply abstinence. My first child was the result of my husband being too "excited" to bother using a condom and although I regretted the fact that I was pregnant, I never considered abortion even tho by then I realised that I made a mistake by marrying him!

 

I feel that a woman has the right to decide what happens in/to her body...it's HER body not anyone else's. I don't deny that a man's body is his but he has responsibilities as to where/how he uses it. I thoought that these days people rarely have unprotected sex unless both parties are "clean" and that a child is desired as the outcome of that union...I certainly wouldn't want to take that risk just for a spot of fun!

 

Killing something with a lot of potential happens quite a bit for males, doesn't it..... sperm are killed when expelled if there's nowhere for them to live so should men not ejaculate with prior thought for how many sperm are about to die...as opposed to just getting rid of them willynilly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Awesome! It's been a while since I've had reason to actually debate head-to-head with Cerbera, and unlike Naomi, he actually has objective debating skills and a capacity for reason.

 

It's just a shame he is so ignorant of everything in presenting his one-sided arguments. I'll have to fix that.

 

First, I'll fix his table of pregnancy effects:

 

Symptom Effect on Female Effect on Male
Diseases Risk of STD's during conception, reduced risk of most diseases after conception as her cervical filter is strengthened once it doesn't need to allow sperm in, increased risk of complications that can only affect pregnant women (duh), care must be taken when taking drugs Risk of STD's during conception
Morning Sickness, 1st 3 months Feel nausea (largely due to lack of rest), no knowledge of pregnancy for most of this time, yell at male Care for her and put up with her complaining, still ignorant of pregnancy for most of this time
Excitement and Anticipation The incredible high of knowing she is going to have a baby, followed by a triggering of many maturnal instincts like "nest-building" The incredible high of knowing he is going to be a father, followed by a triggering of many paternal instincts, possible fear that he isn't the real father
Heightened Senses Increases sensitivity to touch, smell, sound, sight, tastes Watch her throw out all the food because it smells bad and put up with her complaining that he's breathing too loudly
Amplified Emotions Rides a euphoric high of excitement and anticipation, often taking many dips into sporadic crying over nothing, essentially becoming bipolar Confusion as to why she's crying over a TV commercial for cars, happiness that she's ecstatic at his suggestion to buy KFC for dinner
Increased Beauty Lips get fuller and redder, clear and glowing complexion, shinier hair, clearer and brighter eyes, body fat reduced and stabilized, fuller breasts, shinier healthier nails, softer hair and skin His girl is more attractive, take a guess what the effects on him are
Need for greater rest and more food Gets to eat more and rest more, with the added bonus of looking more beautiful (see above) Has to buy more food and do more work to compensate
More abdomenal weight (only really significant in the last 3 months) Movement more difficult, sore back, endurance decreased, bladder capacity reduced and constant pressure is applied to the bladder, sometimes leaving stretch marks on skin Minor inconvenience at the most in helping her move around
Labor Pains Severe pain for several, sometimes even dozens of hours Acute anxiety
The End Result: A Child Massive euphoria due to hormone flooding, followed by an intense need to love and nurture the baby making her feel like more of a woman that she's ever felt before, the incredibly happiness and satisfaction of having a child, which is the single greatest pleasure any human can achieve Massive euphoria and pride, followed by an intense need to protect and provide for the baby and his wife making him feel like more of a man than he's ever felt before, the incredibly happiness and satisfaction of having a child, which is the single greatest pleasure any human can achieve
I developed this table while on the phone to my mother (who's had 6 children), and then I confirmed it with one of my ex-girlfriends who has had 2 children. Funnily enough it is hardly different to what I've said before. My mother placed more emphasis on the psychological aspects of having a baby, and my ex placed more emphasis on becoming more beautiful (especially the increase in breast size, which she enjoyed immensely). Both concluded that overall, being pregnant was not just a "good" thing, but was a "great" thing.

 

See, if we took Cerbera's table as being definitive, then one might wonder why ANYONE would EVER have a baby. He makes it sound like it's all a bit too much to bother with really. According to him, there are no positives to being pregnant. The basic psychological principle of pain aversion would thus ensure that only the masochists ever gave birth, in which case after a few generations we'd all be masochists.

 

 

The effects between conception to birth are very much against the female.

Well, if you only focus on the negative side-effects that affect only the female, then yeah. Duh. But if you focus on both the pros and the cons for both genders, then one can easily conclude this:

 

The effects of pregnancy are very much for both the male and the female.

 

And, funnily enough, the future of the species too. It's weird how evolution somehow manages to manipulate things so that a species can survive huh?

 

 

With that established, one can consider the object which is under threat of abortion. Although this is potentially a human there are several mechanisms which can destroy it, systematically and pragmatically. Mort, myself an Naomi have all mentioned this previously so we presumably all accept that there can be a biological necessity for the embyro to be terminated. Since human physiology is not a perfect mechanism, it may be the case that sometimes an embryo is terminated accidentally and conversely that an embryo might not be terminated when this is, in fact, the best option.

No offence Cerbera, but you are largely completely ignorant of something very important. What our conscious minds consider to be the "best option" is seldom actually the best option. Also, the mechanisms by which a female can avoid a baby are highly refined and very complicated. So whilst not perfect, they are more than up to the task of keeping babies that are beneficial, and aborting babies that are not. Whether or not the concious mind agrees is irrelevant, because it knows nothing of everything that is happening under the surface, which I assure you, is vastly more complex and interesting than you realise.

 

 

Since no males I know of have any reservation about destroying millions of sperm daily, the view must be that the loss of reproductive material is not a problem. Since the male system can produce a new batch of sperm well within a matter of hours, losing a batch is somewhat insignificant. Since most males leap at the opportunity to rely on the female's pregnancy prevention pill to enjoy sex without a condom, there must also be the view that ejecting the reproductive material into the female reproductive system does not automatically require that sperm to fertilise an ovum and create a child. Indeed, quite often the sperm will not even reach an ovum despite their best efforts.

Again, you show your ignorance of the facts. It is not the case that men have no reservation about destroying millions of sperm daily. It is the case that sperm are highly strategic and specialised. Only less than 1% of a man's sperm are egg-getters. Around 60% are "killer" sperm, designed to kill only other men's sperm. Most of the rest are "blockers", designed to block the cervical channels to prevent other men's sperm from entering. Occasionally, when times are tough, a man will also include "family planning" sperm, which are killer sperm that are indiscriminate, and their role is to prevent his own egg-getters from fertilizing her egg when he is too stressed to bring a baby into the world.

 

Essentially, because of how humans evolved, the pressures that women placed on men to compete for fertilization inside her meant that we evolved highly sophisticated methods of sperm warfare. When a man masterbates, he sheds old sperm, which are likely to be blockers, replacing them with young, killer sperm and fertile egg-getters, in the attempt to maximise his attack force. When engaged in routine sex, his strategy changes to defence, by including more blockers. He even adjusts the number of sperm he ejaculates in accordance with how long it has been since he last inseminated his girl, and how likely it was that she has been unfaithful.

 

And I'm only scraping the surface. Seriously, there is far more going on than you could pretend to know. Men don't "waste" sperm. They do everything they can to maximise the chance of them fertilizing her eggs. It's extremely similar to a game of gridiron. Most of the sperm are there to simply attack the other sperm or create an impenetrable defence, while a tiny proportion try to break through and score. The tactics employed are incredibly dynamic and intelligent. And they need to be, because a woman's hidden estrus, hidden even from her, is constantly moving the goalposts. A woman can go many months without ovulating (but still menstruating to appear to be ovulation). When she does ovulate, it is almost entirely random (unless she is raped, which sparks immediate ovulation), coming anywhere from a few days after menstruation, to weeks afterwards. In fact, the only non-random element of a woman's cycle is the amount of days after she ovulates (or "fake" ovulates), which varies only between 13 and 16 days. And she's only fertile for one day. Thus men must attempt to keep a constant supply of sperm (which can only last a maximum of 5 days) within her to be ready when she decides to ovulate.

 

When I say that men earn fertilization, I mean it from the highest level (behaviour) right down to the lowest (sperm warfare).

 

 

This shows that simply donating reproductive material doesn't create any requirement for that material to become a child. Indeed, creating a child is normally the last thing the male desires.

Consciously, perhaps. But not subconsciously. Men are invariably averse to using condoms because it fvcks up their strategy for reproductive success. On the other hand, women have far less problem with condoms becuase they don't infringe on her reproductive success (though woman are incredibly unlikey to make their lovers wear condoms, only their partners). This is becuase her reproductive strategy depends on confusion and misdirection. It is beneficial to her to be having sex at all times throughout her cycle because it maintains the confusion about when she is fertile, thus giving her body greater control over who she allows to fertilize her because only her subconscious body knows when she can be fertile.

 

But seriously I couldn't possibly cover the details of all this in any post. Go read Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. You'll see the most complicated and beautiful example of competitive complementary evolution you'll ever see.

 

 

Therefore it is not a matter which can be decided automatically through the local biology. Instead, the decision must be made according to environmental factors and the desires of both parties.

Wrong. Your argument is weak and ill informed, and your conclusion is false. All human behaviour is the result of our biology. Our environment only shapes our biology, but our biology is what we are. Our very desires are the product of biological mechanisms. But our conscious desires are seldom very informed. They only need to as informed as necessary to survive and follow our instincts to mate.

 

But let's re-evalutate your table anyway:

 

 

 

Desire of Male

 

Desire of Female

 

Most beneficial outcome

 

 

 

Does not want child

 

Does not want child

 

Abort child, as neither parent would be fit to care for it and adoption is a poor solution, and their reproductive success would be compromised by wasting time and energy to create a child that will be raised in such a poor environment as an orphanage

 

 

 

Does not want child

 

Does want child

 

Male is absolved of all rights and responsibilities towards child, mother keeps sole rights and responsibilities over child, child grows up with a biological parent that loves them, both parents have increased reproductive success

 

 

 

Does want child

 

Does not want child

 

Female is absolved of a;; rights and responsibilities towards child, father keeps sole rights and responsibilities over child, child grows up with a biological parent that loves them, both parents have increased reproductive success, mother undergoes the horrors of pregnancy, possibility of an equitable solution being formed between parents where the father "buys her out" of the child, in effect paying for her time off work and an additional sum for her pregnancy troubles

 

 

 

Does want child

 

Does want child

 

Both father and mother maintain shared rights and responsibilities over the child, child grows up with both biological parents that love them, both parents have reproductive success

 

 

NOTE TO NAOMI: I do not, as I never have, propose that any of this is legislated or enforced on anyone. I merely suggest that this is the most equitable way to go about things, bringing the most benefit to the most people in all outcomes, including considerations of the father, the mother, and the child, in addition to considerations of their biological reproductive success.

 

 

Basically, nobody of any gender need to be forced into parenthood since embryos are pretty easy to create, unaware of their death and therefore expendable.

This, and your table, were truly funny. Most especially your arguments to the effect that since the embryo is unaware of it's death, it is ok to kill it. By that reasoning, it is perfectly ok to kill you in your sleep, to kill people in comas, and to kill people in persistant vegetative states. After all, you're expendable by virtue of the fact of your unawares.

 

Likewise, embryos are not "pretty easy to create". In fact it takes about 300-500 instances of having sex to fertilize one egg. There is a hell of a lot going on to fertilize one single egg, for both the father and the mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

Just a few remarks that i would disagree with, Mortukai:

 

Not all pregnancies are great..morning sickness isn't just during the first few months, it can go on throughout the whole pregnancy...and no it isn't just confined to the morning, either. And you forgot to mention the hemorrohoids!

 

I knew I was pregnant from time of conception with both my pregnancies....even before doctors could confirm it....in fact I was told that I definitely was NOT pregnant during the first 8 weeks of my first pregnancy.

 

Not an incredible high at being pregnant:: the stress and worry of how we were going to cope financially plus the morning sickness wiped any "joy".

 

As to increased beauty...lank stringy hair is NOT an improvement, nor is greasy skin and stretch marks are the pits even tho' some men regard them as badge of honour for producing offspring.

 

Labour pains: the joys of first time labour! The degradation of being poked and prodded in delicate intimate areas by heavy handed male doctors who have an inability to be able to find your cervix. Being confined to bed after waters break so having to have bedpans for the 24 hours I was in labour with the first! The delights of being cut and then stitched up afterwards, the anal examinations to check no damage has been done, the pain of your milk coming in for the first time - Yes it does hurt to have your breasts swell and get hot with milk and if they swell too much, then the baby can't latch on so you have to relieve the pressure so that it can feed whilst feeling as if your breasts are going to burst...oh yes that's a great feeling...I couldn't wait to go through it all again -that's why there's 4 years between my 2 children!

 

And what did the males do during all this......Not a gosh darn lot really...altho Cerb's dad was much better than my daughter's.

 

And sorry for making it personal.....I've never been good at analytical discussion!

 

 

Edited by Cerbera'sMum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

I'm going to ignore the fact that you are presenting 2 data points against my 8 (actually more than that, because my mum was also talking about the many, many pregnancies of her friends which she has discussed with them and seen through with them), and instead I'm going to ask you one question:

 

Why did you not abort?

 

You keep going on about how horrible pregnancy is, and how little the men in your life have had to do with you during your pregnancies. Fine. That's your experience, and whilst it does not invalidate any of the experience of other mother's, it is still valid in and of itself as your own.

 

So why did you not abort? Were you forced to carry the baby to term against your will? With the lack of presence of both fathers, I can hardly see this happening. Are you just a sucker for punishment? Or what? Why give birth, despite all the "horrors" and tribulations of your pregnancies? Why give birth if all you can remember of it was the negatives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

Mortukai, you might consider that, as a man, you have no direct experience with what the f*ck you're talking about when you compare the benefits and drawbacks of pregnancy. It's all fine and good to ask a sample of two women for their opinion, but the policy you advocate is general, and not just for those women you polled.

 

I'm not saying pregnancy is a fundamentally negative experience... I imagine that mostly depends on whether you want the child or not. Women forced to carry a baby to term because the father alone wanted it probably wouldn't find the experience as positive as you suggest.

 

Keep in mind that all pregnancies carry a risk of dying during childbirth. This risk is highest for the first pregnancy (which is the most likely to be accidental), and for girls who are very young. Most woman who want to have children take that risk gladly, but I doubt the same could be said for women forced into it.

 

On a side note, downplaying the difficulties that come with a pregnancy, whether wanted or not, makes you come off as very callous towards the opposite sex. You might want to reconsider your attitude, if not your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Mortukai, you might consider that, as a man, you have no direct experience with what the f*ck you're talking about when you compare the benefits and drawbacks of pregnancy. It's all fine and good to ask a sample of two women for their opinion, but the policy you advocate is general, and not just for those women you polled.

Alternatively, as a man with as much experience as is possible for a man to have re pregnancy sans actually seeing one through to completion (though it's been close a few times), and being that I have read numerous books on the matter, and being that such topics were covered as part of my uni degree (taught by women), and being that those two women I sampled were merely in the interest of ensuring that my facts (which I had previously gathered long before I polled them) were straight; you might consider that I know a hell of a lot more about pregnancy than you do.

 

You'd do well not to project your ignorance onto me in the future. Just because you have no idea what the fvck you are talking about, doesn't mean the same for anyone else.

 

 

I'm not saying pregnancy is a fundamentally negative experience... I imagine that mostly depends on whether you want the child or not. Women forced to carry a baby to term because the father alone wanted it probably wouldn't find the experience as positive as you suggest.

One could easily say the same for men. One can imagine that when the father wants a child, the experience of his wife being pregnant would be a positive experience, but when he doesn't, he may contemplate skipping town.

 

Additionally, I have never suggested that women be "forced" to carry a child to term. Remember, I'm not dealing with selfish desires in my ethics. I'm dealing above all that, looking at the maximum good for the maximum number of people. No laws or coercion. Simply people making informed decisions voluntarily which are to the benefit of the greater good. It would be my hope that if a man and a woman fvck, and she gets pregnant, and the father wants the child, but she does not, that she would volunteer to carry it to term so that he can have a child and they can both enjoy reproductive success without the need to murder a defenceless baby. If her body decides that such a task is too stressfull, then it is free to miscarriage, because after all, it is in the best position to make such a choice, being that it knows everything her conscious mind is ignorant of.

 

Just like it would be my hope that were the situation revered, the man, who does not want the child, would not have to leave town to avoid supporting an unwanted child.

 

It is unfortunate that women must carry children to term, because it seems they are least equipped to carry the ethical responsibilities of that task, being that the vast majority never reason beyond stage 3 reasoning (an egocentric ethic of care). Were men the ones to gestate babies, and I were still a man, my conclusions would be identical. Likewise if I were a woman but retained my current mind.

 

 

Keep in mind that all pregnancies carry a risk of dying during childbirth. This risk is highest for the first pregnancy (which is the most likely to be accidental), and for girls who are very young. Most woman who want to have children take that risk gladly, but I doubt the same could be said for women forced into it.

Keep in ming that life carries with it the risk of death. So too do many occupations carry with them a higher than average risk of death. Even occupations that men are forced into taking up to support unwanted children. Never forget that in all countries over all time, men have a significantlyhigher mortality rate than women, and a drastically higher suicide rate. Until those things are even, I couldn't care less if pregnancy comes with a risk of death, as the risk isn't close to enough to make them equal with men.

 

 

On a side note, downplaying the difficulties that come with a pregnancy, whether wanted or not, makes you come off as very callous towards the opposite sex. You might want to reconsider your attitude, if not your position.

Frankly I don't care how I come off as. I'd rather be callous and right, than PC and wrong. And I'm certainly not going to change my position because some people don't like it. Facts care not for petty issues of politically correct distaste.

 

 

So jheath, how about instead of projecting your ignorance onto me and using subtle threats of how I appear to coerce me to alter my position, how about you instead engage with my arguments themselves and counter them? Until you can, you have earnt no respect from me, having demonstrated no ability to reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

To Mortukai ....You have misread my points, I apologise for not making them clearer. I do not have memories of only the bad points of pregnancy, I merely used them to show the discrepancies in your information...not ALL pregnancies are wonderful and that was the point I was making.

 

As to the fathers' they were about during labour (again I apologise for that not being clear) but my ex husband enjoyed watching anyone in pain so he got something from the ordeal although he didn't actually come into the hospital until after his Mum had cooked him a nice meal while all I'd had from 6am was water!

 

Cerb's Dad was with me from 1st labour through a very short labour (3 hours from 1st pain to popping Cerb out) and was supportive but there's not much a man can do: he can't take your place to give you a break from the pain so when push comes to shove, it's down to the woman to do the necessary.

 

I actually have reasonably happy memories as well as the bad ones of being pregnant but as you were putting forth what the good points were, I felt it was only fair to show the not so good ones as well which you didn't seem to have fully covered.

 

I have already said that I don't hold with abortion...which is why I've produced 2 offspring, bless them!

 

I still think that your argument is biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

You have misread my points, I apologise for not making them clearer. I do not have memories of only the bad points of pregnancy, I merely used them to show the discrepancies in your information...not ALL pregnancies are wonderful and that was the point I was making.

Of course not ALL pregnancies are wonderful. Just like not all sex is wonderful, not all food is delicious, and not all hollywood blockbusters are crap. But focusing on the minorities in an attempt to argue for what should hold for the majority is incongruent. In such a debate as this it is surely necessary to speak in generalities, because we're talking about what should be the case for the majority of people.

 

Some women die during pregnancy. Some miscarriage. Some feel wonderful, some feel crap, some eat ice-cream with pickles, some eat chocolate syrup on eggs, some become radiant, some sickly, some happy, some sad, some have support from family, some don't, some have support from fathers, some don't, some babies are concieved with partners, some with lovers, some from a man raping her, some from her raping a man, some with intent, others accidental, others deceptively.

 

Trying to decide what should be done by focusing on only the outliers is ridiculous. It is far better to look at the most common shared aspects of pregnancy which the majority of women experience.

 

And on the whole, the evidence suggests strongly that pregnancy is a positive experience. Which is, of course, entirely logical and consistent with what one would expect given evolutionary processses. Women who enjoy pregnancy will have more children than those who do not, and thus over time, most women will inherit a predisposition to enjoy pregnancy. This pattern is even evidenced by the tiny sample we've looked at here. You had 2 children, 4 years apart, because you thought the experience was less than satisfactory. My mother enjoyed it, and had 6 children 2 years apart (except for a 4yr gap when she was unmarried). My ex had 2 children 2 yrs apart and plans on having more (she's only 23). I think it's obvious that such a pattern would appear in much larger samples too, given that people are more likely to do things that they enjoy than not (the climbing obesity is one prime example of this fact too). Thus in terms of reproductive success, having a positive experience of pregnancy makes a definitive difference.

 

We don't have 6 billion people on this planet because every man abandons the mother and ever mother experiences a horrific pregnancy.

 

So how about we look at the common traits, and not the outliers?

 

 

I actually have reasonably happy memories as well as the bad ones of being pregnant but as you were putting forth what the good points were, I felt it was only fair to show the not so good ones as well which you didn't seem to have fully covered.

Ah, but I did include the bad aspects, I just didn't blow them out of proportion compared to the positive ones. Neither did I blow the positive ones out of proportion. I merely described.

 

On the other hand, even still you have only presented the negative aspects of pregnancy which you experienced. You have mentioned that you do have positive memories, but you haven't mentioned what they are. You are presenting a rather biased view, naming a whole range of negative things which you experienced, and referring only in the abstract to the positives with "Oh, I've had positives of course.... but here's some more negatives".

 

Perhaps you could present a more objective and honest perspective by listing all the positives in addition to all the negatives, and not blowing any of either out of proportion.

 

 

I have already said that I don't hold with abortion...which is why I've produced 2 offspring, bless them!

Well perhaps you could present your arguments as to why you don't hold with abortion. After all, this is a debate on abortion, and your own arguments in support of your own position would hardly be out of place, and in fact would be beneficial to the diversity and comprehensiveness of the debate.

 

 

I still think that your argument is biased.

And arguing that a father should have no say in the life or murder of his child isn't biased? Hahaha!!!

 

No, I think my position is patently the least biased position of all possible positions, being that it respects and acknowledges the rights and responsibiliites of fathers, mothers, and children, within the context of evolutionary reproductive success. ANY position which ignores one or more of these factors is necessarily inferior and biased by virtue of the fact it is deliberately ignoring some information or even a whole party in favour of a particular outcome for a particular party. That's damn near the definition of bias. Even the title: "Women's body, women's choices" blatently dismisses and ignores any role men might have, by claiming that the only issue at hand is that of what a woman does with her body, thus ignoring the child, the father, evolution, and even her own body's subconscious biology. Long reign the ignorant selfish masses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath
Mortukai, you might consider that, as a man, you have no direct experience with what the f*ck you're talking about when you compare the benefits and drawbacks of pregnancy. It's all fine and good to ask a sample of two women for their opinion, but the policy you advocate is general, and not just for those women you polled.

Alternatively, as a man with as much experience as is possible for a man to have re pregnancy sans actually seeing one through to completion (though it's been close a few times), and being that I have read numerous books on the matter, and being that such topics were covered as part of my uni degree (taught by women), and being that those two women I sampled were merely in the interest of ensuring that my facts (which I had previously gathered long before I polled them) were straight; you might consider that I know a hell of a lot more about pregnancy than you do.

 

You'd do well not to project your ignorance onto me in the future. Just because you have no idea what the fvck you are talking about, doesn't mean the same for anyone else.

 

 

I'm not saying pregnancy is a fundamentally negative experience... I imagine that mostly depends on whether you want the child or not. Women forced to carry a baby to term because the father alone wanted it probably wouldn't find the experience as positive as you suggest.

One could easily say the same for men. One can imagine that when the father wants a child, the experience of his wife being pregnant would be a positive experience, but when he doesn't, he may contemplate skipping town.

 

Additionally, I have never suggested that women be "forced" to carry a child to term. Remember, I'm not dealing with selfish desires in my ethics. I'm dealing above all that, looking at the maximum good for the maximum number of people. No laws or coercion. Simply people making informed decisions voluntarily which are to the benefit of the greater good. It would be my hope that if a man and a woman fvck, and she gets pregnant, and the father wants the child, but she does not, that she would volunteer to carry it to term so that he can have a child and they can both enjoy reproductive success without the need to murder a defenceless baby. If her body decides that such a task is too stressfull, then it is free to miscarriage, because after all, it is in the best position to make such a choice, being that it knows everything her conscious mind is ignorant of.

 

Just like it would be my hope that were the situation revered, the man, who does not want the child, would not have to leave town to avoid supporting an unwanted child.

 

It is unfortunate that women must carry children to term, because it seems they are least equipped to carry the ethical responsibilities of that task, being that the vast majority never reason beyond stage 3 reasoning (an egocentric ethic of care). Were men the ones to gestate babies, and I were still a man, my conclusions would be identical. Likewise if I were a woman but retained my current mind.

 

 

Keep in mind that all pregnancies carry a risk of dying during childbirth. This risk is highest for the first pregnancy (which is the most likely to be accidental), and for girls who are very young. Most woman who want to have children take that risk gladly, but I doubt the same could be said for women forced into it.

Keep in ming that life carries with it the risk of death. So too do many occupations carry with them a higher than average risk of death. Even occupations that men are forced into taking up to support unwanted children. Never forget that in all countries over all time, men have a significantlyhigher mortality rate than women, and a drastically higher suicide rate. Until those things are even, I couldn't care less if pregnancy comes with a risk of death, as the risk isn't close to enough to make them equal with men.

 

 

On a side note, downplaying the difficulties that come with a pregnancy, whether wanted or not, makes you come off as very callous towards the opposite sex. You might want to reconsider your attitude, if not your position.

Frankly I don't care how I come off as. I'd rather be callous and right, than PC and wrong. And I'm certainly not going to change my position because some people don't like it. Facts care not for petty issues of politically correct distaste.

 

 

So jheath, how about instead of projecting your ignorance onto me and using subtle threats of how I appear to coerce me to alter my position, how about you instead engage with my arguments themselves and counter them? Until you can, you have earnt no respect from me, having demonstrated no ability to reason.

Howdy Mortukai... thanks for the reply. Some thoughts on your response:

 

 

you might consider that I know a hell of a lot more about pregnancy than you do.

 

You'd do well not to project your ignorance onto me in the future.

 

 

This is odd... I don't recall presenting any of my credentials (or lack thereof) to speak authoritatively on this subject, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. I mean, really, for all you knew about me, I could have been the foremost gynecologist in Tazmania, (my profile notwithstanding, of course.) If I'm reading you correctly, you're concluding that I must be ignorant because I don't downplay the risks and drawbacks of pregnancy as dismissively as you did.

 

Now, that said, you are correct... your experience as a male with pregnancy does indeed eclipse mine. Your point is well taken.

 

My point, however, still stands: you have no direct experience with being pregnant, and most thoughtful men would hesitate to judge what they haven't experienced for themselves. After all, it's much easier to talk the talk than walk the walk. By analogy, a blind man might be told a great deal about the vividness of color and so become an authority on the subject among the blind, but I'll leave it up to you to decide whether he really is as qualified as he might like to think.

 

 

Additionally, I have never suggested that women be "forced" to carry a child to term.

 

 

My mistake... I didn't read your posts carefully enough. I thought your point was that abortion should be *legal* only when both partners agree to it (this being a thread on the legality of abortion, after all.) Hence some of the heat in my reply was misplaced.

 

Your contention that the man should have some say in the matter (when he wants the child and the girl does not) is perfectly reasonable. After all, it's up to his powers of persuasion to convince the girl that she should bring the child to term because he'll look after it from then on. What I object to is the man having a decisive legal say in the matter, which could result in women being forced one way or another.

 

As for the question of child support payments from unwilling fathers, I'm abivalent on the issue. I can see why you'd object to the man's future being bound to the woman's decision, with no say in the matter, especially from the idealistic point of view of equality between the genders. However, the reality is that the genders are not equal. While women have to get an abortion to divest themselves of an unwanted pregnancy, men can (and often do) just walk away.

 

I'm tempted to say that child payments should be mandatory whether the father likes it or not (most unwilling dads most certainly will not), if only because it carries the social benefits of reducing the number of children growing up in poverty, and would make men more inclined to use protection in the first place. (You could argue that it would make mothers less inclined to resort to abortion, but I believe the deciding factor there has more to do with ethics than economics.)

 

 

It is unfortunate that women must carry children to term, because it seems they are least equipped to carry the ethical responsibilities of that task, being that the vast majority never reason beyond stage 3 reasoning (an egocentric ethic of care).

 

 

Hmm... if you thought my last reply was a tad aggressive, you should have heard what my ex girlfriend thought of this gem. smile.gif

 

To be fair, I've read the theory of ethics you're referring to, so I can see where you're getting this from. It's not something I agree with, however. The stages of ethical reasoning were developed by predominantly male psychologists and ethicists looking at mostly male subjects; the theory is slanted to male ways of reasoning. While males think more in terms of abstract absolutes, females tend to think of problems in terms mediation and consensus building. Is the female way of thinking inferior or superior? Depends on the application... I'd argue that both ways of thinking are necessary for a healthy society, and for raising healthy children.

 

 

... using subtle threats of how I appear to coerce me to alter my position ...

 

 

It's too bad you thought I was threatening you... I genuinely thought you were unaware of how callous and misogynistic your arguments sounded, and my advice was given in more of a spirit of a helpful suggestion than a threat. You're welcome to your position if you like, but the attitude as I saw it doesn't help convince others of your logic. If that's fine by you, it's fine by me.

 

 

how about you instead engage with my arguments themselves and counter them?

 

 

Hmm... I thought I was doing that in my last post (although I admit I did misunderstand you on the really important point of legality, so there I was fighting a strawman.) Let's hope I did better in this post.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

 

And on the whole, the evidence suggests strongly that pregnancy is a positive experience. Which is, of course, entirely logical and consistent with what one would expect given evolutionary processses

 

I question the logic behind this point. Sure, women who have difficult pregnancies would be less inclined (and probably less able) to have children, but the enjoyability of pregnancy is not the only factor, nor even the most important. I'd argue that, from the perspective of evolution, the enjoyability of sex and plays a bigger role than the enjoyablility of pregnancy, that sex drive is the mechanism for preserving the species. To be blunt, most women have sex because their enjoy coitus or want children, not necessarily because they enjoy pregnancy.

 

As for numbers of children, again, having an easy pregnancy probably helps with having more, but it is not the salient factor. I'd say economics plays more of a role. After all, historically people tried to have large families (whether the woman enjoyed pregnancy or not) so that they could eventually be supported by their children, like their parents before them. The fact that families are getting smaller in modern times in advanced countries indicates a changing economic climate, and not that pregnancy has somehow become less enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Excellent! Welcome to D&D jheath! If you contribute in such a manner consistently, I've no doubt you'll be well recieved and earn a degree of respect in no time. You may even topple Cerbera as the second best debator here wink.gif

 

But before I reply to your posts....

 

As chance would have it, I happened to stumble across an interesting article about risks of death and pregnancy. As it turns out, women aged 15-49 who are pregnant or have recently been pregnant (within the last year) have a 40% lower chance of dying of any cause than non-pregnant women in the same age range. But that's not the best part. The best part is that women's risk of death was increased by a factor of 1.5 after an induced abortion (but unchanged after a spontaneous abortion).

 

So the chance of death during pregnancy is tiny (0.037%), 40% smaller than the chance of death from any cause (natural or accidental) in non-pregnant women, and induced abortion (as opposed to the body's own mechanisms for spontaneous abortion) carries with it a 50% increase in the chance of death.

 

Source.

 

Times like these make me smile.

 

 

My point, however, still stands: you have no direct experience with being pregnant, and most thoughtful men would hesitate to judge what they haven't experienced for themselves. After all, it's much easier to talk the talk than walk the walk. By analogy, a blind man might be told a great deal about the vividness of color and so become an authority on the subject among the blind, but I'll leave it up to you to decide whether he really is as qualified as he might like to think.

Consider a blind man who has spent years studying light and colour theory, as well as the mechanisms of the eyes and visual cortex. He can tell you about radial inhibition in the retina, he can describe the processing pathways through the striate cortex, he can tell you the frequencies that our retina's receptor cells can pick up, he can explain light scattering and atmospheric hazing, the interactions of photons with electrons, caustics, indexes of refraction, fresnel reflection, sub-surface scattering, red- and blue-shift, etc etc.

 

Basically this blind man knows everything about light and colour that is possible to know. Except the subjective experience of actually seeing colour.

 

And yet most sighted people can't even tell you how the colour wheel works and the difference betwen subtractive and additive colour mixing.

 

If you wanted to know something about colour, would you ask your average ignorant sighted person? Or the knowledgable but subjective experience lacking blind person?

 

Another analogy would be a doctor. He might not be sick, and he might not have ever felt the symptoms you have. But would you trust him to cure you? Or would you trust a friend who has the same sickness as you?

 

My point is that subjective experience, really, is most often way over-emphasized. In psychology, even moreso than in other disciplines like law and physics, subjective experience of anything is viewed as highly suspect and almost meaningless in and of itself. Subjective experience is only useful in that it gives insight into the underlying processes and belief structures.

 

 

Your contention that the man should have some say in the matter (when he wants the child and the girl does not) is perfectly reasonable. After all, it's up to his powers of persuasion to convince the girl that she should bring the child to term because he'll look after it from then on. What I object to is the man having a decisive legal say in the matter, which could result in women being forced one way or another.

Relying in the man to provide the burden of proof as to why the mother shouldn't kill his child is rather silly, don't you think? Shouldn't it be up to the mother to prove why she should kill their child against the will of the father (whose child it is equally)?

 

I object to anyone being forced to do something against their will. Whether it's the mother carrying an unwanted child to term, or a father losing a significant portion of his income for the next 20 years to support an unwanted child.

 

I'd much rather people voluntarily come to an informed agreement as to the most beneficial outcome for the most parties involved. In other words, I'd rather that people were more capable of higher ethical reasoning, and were less self-centered and careless of other's needs/desires.

 

I'm crazy like that.

 

 

However, the reality is that the genders are not equal. While women have to get an abortion to divest themselves of an unwanted pregnancy, men can (and often do) just walk away.

As I've said before, no-one had any say in their gender. Blame nature or god for that. But we are all stuck with who we are. Complaining about how it's "not fair" is futile and infantile. Trying to claim special priviledges because of the genes you randomly ended up with is likewise incredibly arrogant and incredulous.

 

But so is saying "we aren't equal, so we might as well allow any inequality to happen". You're right. We aren't equal. Men are men and women are women. There are many gender differences, sometimes even quite extreme. But what if I used my masculine strength and genius to coerce women to do my bidding? They could complain all they want, but I could just stand there and say "Stiff sh!t b!tches, we're not equal and I have superior strength and guile, so by virtue of my inequality I can be selfish and do what I want with the powers I was given, get used to it".

 

How is that different from anyone saying "Women are the ones who carry babies to term and so they should be the only ones who matter, and must be convinced otherwise"?

 

 

I'm tempted to say that child payments should be mandatory whether the father likes it or not (most unwilling dads most certainly will not), if only because it carries the social benefits of reducing the number of children growing up in poverty, and would make men more inclined to use protection in the first place.

If child support payments were mandatory (which... they are), then NOT aborting should be illegal without the father's consent. After all, he's the one paying for the child.

 

But frankly the contention that men should be forced to pay for something they don't want simply because they are men and had the audacity to give a girl a good dicking is ludicrous. I really can't see how you could seccessfully argue for such a position. But I'd be interested in seeing you try.

 

 

Hmm... if you thought my last reply was a tad aggressive, you should have heard what my ex girlfriend thought of this gem. smile.gif

 

To be fair, I've read the theory of ethics you're referring to, so I can see where you're getting this from. It's not something I agree with, however. The stages of ethical reasoning were developed by predominantly male psychologists and ethicists looking at mostly male subjects; the theory is slanted to male ways of reasoning. While males think more in terms of abstract absolutes, females tend to think of problems in terms mediation and consensus building. Is the female way of thinking inferior or superior? Depends on the application... I'd argue that both ways of thinking are necessary for a healthy society, and for raising healthy children.

Oh, I can guess what your ex thought of it. I was in a lecture theatre with 250 20-ish girls when the lecturer covered morality. It was quite funny.

 

Honestly, I could go on for many, many pages about morality and gender and the whole Kohlberg and Gilligan studies and their effect on psychology, but I won't hijack this thread. If you post to the ethics thread I'll be more than happy to take it up there. But for now, it'll have to suffice to say that after Gilligan failed to expand upon or contest Kohlberg's theory, morality research died. As in, dropped off the fvcking radar. Psychology is extremely pro-feminist (and behind the scenes, often quite violent and aggressive), and as soon as something comes out that no-one likes to hear, it is dropped like a rock.

 

But if you are interested in a good debate, I'll look forward to seeing you in the ethics thread.

 

 

It's too bad you thought I was threatening you... I genuinely thought you were unaware of how callous and misogynistic your arguments sounded, and my advice was given in more of a spirit of a helpful suggestion than a threat. You're welcome to your position if you like, but the attitude as I saw it doesn't help convince others of your logic. If that's fine by you, it's fine by me.

Ahh, I love that word. Misogynistic. It doesn't get thrown around enough. I've even been called misogynistic for having the gall to suggest that men are stronger than women, and then proving my point with guinness records, olympic records, and research on averages (on average, men are 4x stronger than women, but at the extremes that gap reduces to only 2x). That makes me misogynistic.

 

Thing is, the conception that someone is a misogynist seems entirely based on how much the accuser doesn't like what the accused has to say, regardless of how factual it is. If I state the fact that male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 13:1, I must hate women. Why? Because the accuser doesn't like the consequences. It has nothing to do with the actual facts, it's all about liking or disliking the person for presenting information which is disagreeable to ones ideals.

 

I don't sugar-coat my logic because that would be dishonest, and to be truthful, I want people to think. If my logic was wrapped in gumdrops and chocolate, then idiots would agree with me as much as intelligent people. If it is hard to swallow, then only the intelligent people can agree with me because they are capable of putting aside their biases long enough to see reason, and smart enough to integrate it because truth is better than ignorance, no matter how blissful.

 

 

I question the logic behind this point. Sure, women who have difficult pregnancies would be less inclined (and probably less able) to have children, but the enjoyability of pregnancy is not the only factor, nor even the most important. I'd argue that, from the perspective of evolution, the enjoyability of sex and plays a bigger role than the enjoyablility of pregnancy, that sex drive is the mechanism for preserving the species. To be blunt, most women have sex because their enjoy coitus or want children, not necessarily because they enjoy pregnancy.

This is easiest to understand if you consider a similar system. Like food. Imagine you really like the taste of chocolate. It tastes so good you want to eat it all the time. However, after you eat it, you feel incredibly sick. It makes you vomit and crap your pants, and you feel like you are being stabbed. This lasts one hour. It doesn't happen every time you eat chocolate, and it's not related to any particular type of chocolate, but once every several times you eat chocolate, seemingly randomly, you'll get incredibly sick.

 

Would you still eat chocolate? I wouldn't. And classical conditioning reseach suggests that you wouldn't either.

 

 

As for numbers of children, again, having an easy pregnancy probably helps with having more, but it is not the salient factor. I'd say economics plays more of a role. After all, historically people tried to have large families (whether the woman enjoyed pregnancy or not) so that they could eventually be supported by their children, like their parents before them. The fact that families are getting smaller in modern times in advanced countries indicates a changing economic climate, and not that pregnancy has somehow become less enjoyable.

Economics has only existed in the last 10 thousand years (the holocene era). This is only 400 human generations, barely enough to make even the smallest evolutionary change, even through runaway sexual selection (the fastest type of evolution). Pretty much all of the sexual and survival pressures that shaped humans to be the species we are today were happening in the 2 million year long pleistocene era. Economical concerns are a recent thing. You are right that it is shaping modern family structures, but wrong if you think that it played any role in the evolution of pregnancy.

 

Family size is nearly always a result of two factors: survival chances of children, and ability to provide for them well. It is always beneficial to have more children if the chance of them dying is high, because it increases the chance that some will survive. It is likewise beneficial to have more children if you can afford to raise them all fit and healthy. The "nuclear" family is the result of high survival and low ability to provide adequately for children.

 

But if pregnancy were unpleasant for all females, then family size across the board would decrease. but the converse is not necessarily true: that pleasant pregnancy would result in higher family size, because the limiting factors of survival chances and providing costs are still in effect. Instead, it is important only that pregnancy is sufficiently pleasant that it does not hamper the number of children born. Once it does not offer any benefit (as in, increased pleasantness is still being limited by other factors), then pregnancy will not evolve to be more pleasant.

 

I think you'll find that the positive aspects of pregnancy have leveled off where they are no longer a limiting factor in family size. The negative effects that we see in pregnancy are there because there has been no pressure to remove them.

 

If that hasn't made sense, I'll try to re-explain it. It's a difficult concept to explain, and would best be served by some sort of visual representation showing ceiling effects and the point where increased pleasantness no longer makes a difference.

Edited by Mortukai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

 

Excellent! Welcome to D&D jheath! If you contribute in such a manner consistently, I've no doubt you'll be well recieved and earn a degree of respect in no time. You may even topple Cerbera as the second best debator here

 

 

Thank you, it’s nice to be here. I’m glad you liked my post, and I’ll try not to disappoint. However, re: toppling Cerbera... surely you jest. smile.gif

 

The statistics you cite on pregnancy and mortality are quite interesting. If I were to guess, I imagine the reduction in mortality compared to non-pregnant women is due to substantially increased risk avoidance on the part of expectant mothers, rather than some intrinsic property of being pregnant. Interesting point all the same. (Mind you, working out the causality in statistics is always a bit tricky. I remember laughing out loud when CNN reported a study a few months ago that claimed that having more sex must make you more fit, based on the correlation between fitness and love life. By the same reasoning I suppose that hunger makes you not eat for extended periods of time. But I digress...)

 

 

Consider a blind man who has spent years studying light and colour theory, as well as the mechanisms of the eyes and visual cortex...

 

Basically this blind man knows everything about light and colour that is possible to know. Except the subjective experience of actually seeing colour.

 

 

My point exactly.

 

Men can learn everything that is possible to know about pregnancy, except of course the subjective experience of what it is like to be pregnant or give birth. After all, we weren’t debating the mechanics of pregnancy (or at least, I don’t think we were), but rather the issue of how positive or negative women find the experience… the subjective experience, as you point out. At the risk of flogging my poor example to death, our knowledgeable blind man would be an excellent source to turn to for information on the mechanics of light, but he’d have difficulty telling us whether blue is a more beautiful color than red.

 

You were closer to this when you cited the experiences of your mother and your ex girlfriend. Perhaps a broader poll would be in order. Any takers?

 

 

Relying in the man to provide the burden of proof as to why the mother shouldn't kill his child is rather silly, don't you think? Shouldn't it be up to the mother to prove why she should kill their child against the will of the father (whose child it is equally)?

 

 

True enough... it *is* unfair, particularly if the man lacks the means or ability to persuade. (The woman could just not tell him, for example.) However, at issue is also the larger question of the “no questions asked” abortion. “No questions asked” is an important mechanism for keeping the coercion of broader society out of the picture. Unfortunately, I don’t see how we could enforce a man’s right to have a say in the issue without compromising that mechanism. On balance, I’d say that protecting abortion from the evangelical fundamentalists is more important. After all, the man could (and should) just ask the girl what she thinks before sleeping with her.

 

 

I'd much rather people voluntarily come to an informed agreement as to the most beneficial outcome for the most parties involved. In other words, I'd rather that people were more capable of higher ethical reasoning, and were less self-centered and careless of other's needs/desires.

 

 

Me too. Until that day comes, (and I’ll be sitting on the edge of my seat in breathless anticipation, to be sure) we’ll just have to muddle through as best we can, and try to preserve the hard-won freedoms from those who’d like to turn the clock back to before Roe v. Wade. But, I think I’ve proselytized enough... doubtless many “pro-lifers” would like to see me dead. smile.gif

 

 

How is that different from anyone saying "Women are the ones who carry babies to term and so they should be the only ones who matter, and must be convinced otherwise"?

 

 

Again, the unequal treatment of men and women reflects the biological inequality of the reproduction process. The choice is much easier for the man because he’s not the one who’ll have to bring the baby to term or get the abortion. Even after the child is born, it’s much easier (without mandatory child support laws) for the father to decide he doesn’t want to be bothered with the responsibility and leave. (That’s not to say that there aren’t women who abandon their children. In my opinion, people who abandon children are pretty close to the bottom of society, particularly when contraception is now so available.) The unfairness of the laws is a proportional reaction to the “unfairness” of biology.

 

 

... After all, he's the one paying for the child.

 

 

I’m not sure you can make the assertion that the father is the sole economic provider... not without qualification. I’m not sure what the statistics are, but I am under the impression that even with child support payments, most single mothers need to work to earn a living.

 

Also, let’s also not forget the opportunity costs that come with staying home to look after children, and the work involved in raising them properly. Given the hours and effort necessary, I could argue that the value of the work put in by a single mother probably exceeds the value of the money the father ends up losing.

 

 

But frankly the contention that men should be forced to pay for something they don't want simply because they are men and had the audacity to give a girl a good dicking is ludicrous. I really can't see how you could seccessfully argue for such a position. But I'd be interested in seeing you try.

 

 

As I mentioned before, I’m more ambivalent on this issue than it might seem, so I’m afraid I won’t be able to argue as convincingly for one side or the other as you might like. However, here goes...

 

In terms of pragmatic benefits, I think my previous points about reducing child poverty and encouraging condom use still stand.

 

From the idealistic point of view, sure, we’re dealing “unfairly” with some men. But let’s take a look at the men this policy actually inconveniences:

 

- They were either unwilling to use contraception, or number among the unfortunate few for whom the protection failed

- They didn’t bother to find out the girl’s wishes beforehand, or were deceived

- They were unwilling or unable to convince the girl to get an abortion

- They were too small-minded or too poor to voluntarily contribute to at least the economic well-being of their own flesh and blood, and so had to be coerced by law

 

Each point reduces the numbers of men who fit in our “inconvenienced” category. Moreover, the numbers of these men could be made (in theory) be very small, given the availability and effectiveness of contraception. (Even in the deepest red parts of Jesusland I believe condoms are still widely available, and besides, premarital sex isn’t exactly mandatory for anyone.) The point is that the payments only impact men who have made a series of choices; they impose consequences for those choices on those who’d rather walk away and leave for others the task of dealing with the burden they were partly responsible for.

 

Finally, from a utilitarian standpoint I’d argue that the payments benefit the children (having enough food) more than it inconveniences the father (not being able to buy luxuries).

 

There... I gave it my best shot, at any rate. It’s not bad for someone who feels two ways on the issue.

 

 

But if you are interested in a good debate, I'll look forward to seeing you in the ethics thread.

 

 

I’ll look forward to it too, but perhaps sometime when I have more time on my hands. The problem is that I write fast but I think slow, which is why I tend to ramble. Sadly, most of my time these days is spent looking for work.

 

The other problem I have with debating ethics is that I’m not sure there really is such a thing. I question whether there really are such things as Good and Evil and all the stratified abstract concepts surrounding them, considering they are human concepts rather than intrinsic properties of the universe. To me the rules of morality look more like mechanisms for preserving orderly and livable society, by constraining and softening our interactions with others, much the same way the legal system does. In many ways my attitude prevents me from taking the study of ethics more seriously.

 

 

I've even been called misogynistic for having the gall to suggest that men are stronger than women, and then proving my point with guinness records, olympic records, and research on averages (on average, men are 4x stronger than women, but at the extremes that gap reduces to only 2x). That makes me misogynistic.

 

 

No, it makes you tactless. smile.gif

 

There’s a fine line between pointing out differences and claiming that women are inferior. I’ll fully acknowledge the former but I reject the latter unless it is very specifically qualified. For example, women *on average* may be inferior to men in terms of physical strength, whereas they are superior in other respects.

 

For example, as an engineering in training, I noticed that there were very, very few women in my courses. (Those who were, however, were consistently near the top of the class.) Some would claim that the disparity is because women aren’t suited for engineering. However, in some fields of engineering there are far more women than men, chemical engineering being a case in point. I found thermochem ridiculously difficult, yet most of the girls excelled at it. This makes me hesitant to draw lines in the sand between the two genders and call one better than the other.

 

 

I don't sugar-coat my logic because that would be dishonest, and to be truthful, I want people to think. If my logic was wrapped in gumdrops and chocolate, then idiots would agree with me as much as intelligent people.

 

 

D’accord. I personally approach debating with the desire to convince people, regardless of my assessment of their intelligence, but hey... whatever works for you. smile.gif

 

 

Imagine you really like the taste of chocolate. It tastes so good you want to eat it all the time. However, after you eat it, you feel incredibly sick. It makes you vomit and crap your pants, and you feel like you are being stabbed. This lasts one hour. It doesn't happen every time you eat chocolate, and it's not related to any particular type of chocolate, but once every several times you eat chocolate, seemingly randomly, you'll get incredibly sick.

 

Would you still eat chocolate? I wouldn't. And classical conditioning reseach suggests that you wouldn't either.

 

 

By this reasoning, I suppose people would never drink too much, or take drugs like heroin, or play Grand Theft Auto till four in the morning. You’re underestimating the capacity of the psyche to ignore long-term consequences in its pursuit of short-term pleasures. Besides, to be honest, screw what they say on valentine’s day: sex is waay better than chocolate. smile.gif

 

As you point out, pregnancy only has to be good enough to avoid impairing fertility. This means that it is fully possible for it to be, on balance, a negative experience for most women, just so long as it is not so negative that it overrides the sex drive or the desire to have children. Besides, even if it were, it certainly wouldn’t impair the man’s sex drive, and through most of human history the guys’ wishes took precedence over their partners’.

 

Anyway, I’m really just being argumentative here... I have the feeling we’re approaching roughly the same position on this issue of evolutionary pressures, just from opposite sides. Thanks for offering to explain natural selection to me, however.

 

I suppose I’ve rambled on long enough now. It’s much easier to just go to catholic discussion circles and flamebait them... that way I don’t get stuck writing long, boring, nuanced arguments my mother wouldn’t even read. Have a good one.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freshy181
Okay. Heres the REAL question. If I raped your mother, and she got pregnant, would u want too get her an abortion? sly.gif (for u anti-abortionist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eviscero

No, I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoplandVictim
If the woman was raped then I feel she can get an abortion if she wants, though I'd prefer she didn't, however if the woman had sex in any way voluntarily and got pregnant, she has to deal with the kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

I think the decision should only ever be made by the parents of the child. It is that simple. It should not be decided either the government or organised religion.

 

Ultimately, the decision should lie with the mother and father, but moreso it should be the decision of the mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y.T.

Well the way I see it is if the baby is born and put in an orphanage, that is the worst thing that could happen. The thought of being put in an orphanage to me would probably make me want to truly kill myself...which right now I am not prone to do. Also the aspect of just being left by whoever brought you into the world would bring a feeling of just tremendous weight upon my shoulders knowing that NOone cares for you just one bit. Even though the thought of extinguishing a life of "a baby" saddens me...I just can't seem to care. It's your choice about what you do with yourself not someone's else's, maybe in a obscenely patriarchal society back in the day I could see all this argument happening...but guess what, it's not and the world has advanced and the prospect that everyone can actually think for themselves not just men has actually arisen.

My motto is anyway...f*ck babies...yet I can't stop going to clinic defense to stop some insane brainwashed religious fanatics from harassing women going into Planned Parenthood clinics. peace folks.

 

edit:yay the first time i tried to post...it didn't post and i had to rewrite the whole thing :|

Edited by Y.T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Metal Face
You know, I think abortion is pretty messed up. But it's necessary sometimes. I mean, there are many children who are abused and have horrible lives. When you think about it, it would have been better for them just to have never had to suffer. So yeah, I don't agree with abortion and I would be furious if a girl I inpregnated had an abortion, but sometimes abortion really is best for the kid.

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.