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

spoof

There has been a great deal of contribution to this thread regarding what is just, what is biological, what is "morally" correct, what is possible, what is given and what cannot be understood by certain others.

 

While it is true that a man cannot understand the physical pain of childbirth, it is also true that a women cannot understand the cognitive pain of a man who has his child aborted by a women merely because she is entitled by law, to do so (for whatever reason).

 

At this point, I'd just like to raise the small issue of AFTER the child is born (if not aborted), but I'll get back to that later.

 

 

 

Regardless of position on this topic - it still remains that if a women falls pregnant (whether the man, who provided half the genetic code for the baby), wishes to have the baby, or not; it is the women who decides whether the potential individual should be allowed life, or not.

 

Even if legal, religious, or other factors would dictate otherwise; a pregnant women can always take steps to abort (or cause a miscarriage) outside of the say of the biological father, or the contextual geographic law.

 

 

Whether, or not, a mother should have more say in the potential future / destruction of her unborn baby, is not the issue. She already has and always will have.

 

The issue, for me, is to what extent the father has any say whatsoever if the mother wishes otherwise (for whatever reason).

 

 

If all life is precious, why is it that only those providing half the genetic code for new life get to have a say?

 

Is there not something inherently unequal in such a situation?

 

 

Some members may perceive that from the above, I am in some way anti-abortion, on the contrary. I believe that abortion is justified under a plethora of circumstance. If only the parents of some of the "contributors" to the San-An related areas of these forums were to have considered abortion more readily, then the world may have been a seemingly better place wink.gif

 

 

I'm by no means inferring that women should have certain rights taken away, I'm merely suggesting the notion that a man should have more than zero say in the matter at a fundamental level.

 

After all, the birth of a child may not be the starting point of a new life, but it is surely the beginning of an individual. If a man was necessary for the start and is legally obliged after the beginning, shouldn't he at least have some say in the in-between?

 

Women have endeavoured for decades to achieve equal rights in society, but when it comes to equality in parental rights for offspring, or even potential offspring, no quarter is seemingly given. Traditionally (historically) the men would go out to work and the women would stay at home and look after the babies. The law reflected this. However, things have changed. Western society has changed.

 

Unfortunately, the law has not kept up with current events.

 

Equal rights, except when deemed otherwise by some, is most definitely akin to an Animal Farm state of affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us not forget that the majority of arguments have, quite rightly so, focused on the events, rights and endeavours leading up to and including childbirth. What about after childbirth? Surely, given it concerns the rest of the life of the child, it should at least be mentioned?

 

 

 

 

Life is complex and equality is perhaps one of the most complex issues in life.

 

 

@jheath - Mort was indeed justified in welcoming you informally, yet officially to D&D.

 

This area of the forums has never been about whom is right, or wrong; nor even about who can provide the most persuasive argument. To the people that gain the most out of this little oasis, it has always been about the contribution.

 

Welcome smile.gif

 

 

 

To digress a little, science dictates (in those societies where abortion is legal) a boundary whereby "life" (the argument of sentience, I guess) is applicable. Given that science has its root in objectivity and fact, and given that man / women (as a species) is inherently irrational, or at the very least can be said to have a bounded rationality; it occurs to me that the issue of new life also impinges on the realms of the subjective and the moral (which can be said to be societal based).

 

Taking this into account, how can science / objectivity, individual subjectivity and the wider societal moralistic frameworks ever meet in agreement?

 

I would posit that they cannot and that's why we called this D&D, not Q&A wink.gif

Edited by spoof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Regardless of position on this topic - it still remains that if a women falls pregnant (whether the man, who provided half the genetic code for the baby), wishes to have the baby, or not; it is the women who decides whether the potential individual should be allowed life, or not.

 

Even if legal, religious, or other factors would dictate otherwise; a pregnant women can always take steps to abort (or cause a miscarriage) outside of the say of the biological father, or the contextual geographic law.

You are absolutely right. It is women who are in the position to have the final say on the life or death of a baby that is the product of two people's genes. Nature has seen fit to afford females alone with this position.

 

Likewise, it is men who are in the position to enforce anything they bloody well want by virtue of nature affording them greater strength and will to do so. The fact that we don't exercise this ability like, say, gorillas do, speaks of the fact that we are willing to refrain from enforcing our wants with our innate power in the interest of reaching an equitable agreement.

 

It seems many women are unwilling to make a similar compromise.

 

There's a very important difference between what people can do, and what people should do from a moral and equity perspective.

 

 

Some members may perceive that from the above, I am in some way anti-abortion, on the contrary. I believe that abortion is justified under a plethora of circumstance. If only the parents of some of the "contributors" to the San-An related areas of these forums were to have considered abortion more readily, then the world may have been a seemingly better place wink.gif

You certainly have a way with words Spoof biggrin.gif Your humorous misanthropy always makes me smile smile.gif

 

I might as well also note that I am not anti-abortion. As I would hope people have noticed, I think abortion would be the best option when neither parent wants the child, and also when the father is absent (such as the case when he raped her, is dead, is incapable of making a decision within the first trimester, etc).

 

And as Spoof so aptly alluded to, some people would be better off not breeding.

 

 

Taking this into account, how can science / objectivity, individual subjectivity and the wider societal moralistic frameworks ever meet in agreement?

 

I would posit that they cannot and that's why we called this D&D, not Q&A

Are you using "cannot" in an absolute sense? Or a relativistic sense that although theoretically achievable, it is not practically possible? I would agree with the later, but not the former. Theoretically, as I've discussed in the Ethics thread, I think that when all relevant information is known, a single agreement can be reached. But so long as multiple camps are only analysing parts of the whole (the parts which support their position), and each camp is analysing different parts from one another, then yes, I agree that a unified agreement is impossible. This is why I attempt to include as much information from as many aspects and persectives as possible in forming my position. I don't claim to have *The* answer, but I do think my position is significantly more comprehensive and thus more beneficial and accurate than most others.

 

We may not ever reach a point where we find THE answer, but I know there is one, and I'll be damned if I'm going to die without doing my best to reach it.

 

 

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.

Well, if you read the article, you might notice how it mentions that less than half the deaths were from natural causes, and 75% of these were not related to pregnancy at all. The article mostly focuses on the reduction in risks of death from natural causes, stating, and I quote: "Like the overall mortality risk, the risk of death from natural causes was about 40% lower among women who were pregnant or had been pregnant in the past year than among nonpregnant women". Clearly this cannot be attribute to risk avoidance. Likewise, the 150% risk of death associated with an induced abortion can hardly be attributed to risk seeking.

 

You're correct about identifying causality, but the article is smart enough not to do that. Correlation is not causality, it is only useful as a tool to identify where a causality might be occuring, but it does not provide any clues as to the direction of causality. But this is neither here nor there, becuase regardless of causality, the fact remains that in terms of risk of dying, getting pregnant is statistically significantly safer than being non-pregnant, and having an induced abortion (as opposed to natural miscarriage) is significantly and drastically more deadly. 16,000 dead women are unlikely to be wrong about this.

 

 

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.

Err, I think you really missed my point.... by a long, long way. My point was that subjective experience, which you are holding up as some sort of holy grail of knowledge, is, scientifically speaking, the lowest form of evidence. It is notoriously unreliable, subject to dozens of socially dependant biases, inconsistent over time and context, and basically a big pile of sh!t that must only be resorted to when there is no other way of measuring something.

 

Some perfect examples exist in this very thread. Cerbera'sMum mentioned that she has pleasant memories of being pregnant, but within the context of this debate, her subjective experience was extremely biased towards only presenting the negatives, and presenting none of the positives, even to the point of twisting some positives into negatives. When I asked her to present the positives she implied she had experienced, she shut the hell up. Why? Because it would hurt her argument. This is what a bias is all about: presenting only information that strongly supports your own argument, and dismissing or blatantly holding back information that is counter to one's position.

 

My mother and my ex were still slightly biased, but were much less so. Because both, while there position spoke of pregnancy being great, still presented the negatives of pregnancy in a proportionate way. But they could still only provide me with subjective experience, hence I did not rely on them for my argument, which instead sources evolutionary biology, ethics of equality, justice, and rights, and research into the objective risks associated with pregnancy.

 

So yeah, you missed my point by a large margin.

 

 

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.

Ok, let's look at this from an analogous angle. Consider assisted suicide. In all objectivity, if a person commits suicide, is it anyone's business but their own? Should anyone have to "persuade" the suicidal person against their decision? Should we simply shrug and say "Oh well, we weren't good enough to persuade them" if they get someone else to kill them?

 

You talk about the importance of a "no questions asked" abortion, because it keeps coercion of society out of the picture. What about a "no questions asked" assisted suicide? Would that be equally desirable? If so, why? If not, why not? What similarities can you find between your arguments for abortion and assisted suicide?

 

I'm interested in seeing if anyone can satisfactorily complete this exercise.

 

 

Again, the unequal treatment of men and women reflects the biological inequality of the reproduction process.

...

The unfairness of the laws is a proportional reaction to the “unfairness” of biology.

No, if the laws were in proportion to biology, then women would have to buy men out of their baby. After all, they have the gift of being able to gestate a child. Men are denied that. Women have the biological control and power over the life of children. If the laws were attempting to provide a proportionate balance, one would imagine (if one had a sense of justice and equality) that compensation would be due men, not the other way around. On the other hand, if the laws are not meant to be just, and are instead meant to exacerbate the disproportionate dealings of biology, then sure, they are doing a great job.

 

 

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.

This is where most people go wrong. See, child support is not, and has never been, meant to give the mother a wage for having a child. It is not meant to support both the mother and the child. It is meant only to support the child. The monetary value of child support is supposed to be enough to pay for half of the child's upbringing costs. The mother is supposed to be able to support herself (or are we expecting too much here?), and pay for half of the child, just like the father is supposed to be able to support himself and pay for half of the child.

 

You're damn right single mothers need to work to earn a living. What right do they possibly have to entitle them to having a man pay their way through life simply because she pushed his baby our of her vagina? What possible reason could be invoked to support the notion that a man must financially support a woman who is recieving nothing in return from? I fully support that every father should pay his share of the costs of raising a child (although not if he is denied access to that child). But he should not have to pay her a wage to raise a kid she decided to have in spite of him. No-one gets paid to raise their own kids (unless they own a 24hr child-care centre). It's part of life.

 

You mention oppurtunity costs associated with staying home with the kids. Here's an idea: give the father custody. No? Well how about not having the kid in the first place? No? Then how about shutting the hell up because millions of mothers have done the same thing and no-one would be here if they hadn't.

 

 

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

Let's construct a mirror version of this:

 

Let's say that instead of a man being forced to pay for a child he didn't want, it's a woman being forced to pay for a child she didn't want. Let's take away her choice in the abortion, and give it all to the father, who decides, against her (irrelevant) wishes, that she's going to have the baby. Fast forward 9 months, and she is now paying child support for a child she never wanted.

 

From the idealistic point of view, sure, we’re dealing “unfairly” with some women. But let’s take a look at the women 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 man's wishes beforehand, or were deceived

- They were unwilling or unable to convince the man to allow 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

 

Hmm. This is a perfectly valid method for establishing equality and fairness. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? But why is it that when it's a man, we feel barely anything, thinking "Oh well, tough sh!t eh?", but when it's a woman, it's all of a sudden a moral outrage? Hmm? All of a sudden, despite it being the exact same situation reversed, it's oppresive and immoral.

 

But then, perhaps women don't want equality. Perhaps they just want all the good, and none of the bad. All the rights, and none of the responsibilities. Perhaps modern men are far too eager to grant them this.

 

 

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.

That's a shame, as I'm sure you'd have at least been able to make a significant and thought-provoking contribution. I, for one, would love to engage you in a debate about the possibility of ethics being an intrinsic property of the universe or not. I'm sure you'd be a worthy opponent and fun could be had by all.

 

 

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.

Heh, perhaps I'm jaded, but convincing people is, largely, impossible (without the aid of hypnotism). People have to meet two criteria in order to be convinced of anything. One, they must have the underlying neural connections within the brain that would allow them to form connections which agree with the thing being presented, and two, they must want to be convinced by the thing being presented. In other words, they have to like what is being argued, and they have to have sufficient underlying knowledge which supports it. Making people like the argument can be helped along by sugar-coating it, but ultimately, no matter how much you sugar coat something, they still have to like the core of it. For example, think of attempts made to convince religious people of atheist arguments. They can quite willingly agree with every sugar-coated premise, but still refuse to accept the conclusion as true, not matter how flawless the logic is.

 

So instead, I simply have fun contributing arguments any way I want, leaving it to the readers who have sufficient understanding and desire for truth to convince themselves.

 

 

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.

Ahh, but these things are quite diffferent. They might not seem so, but they are. They work on principles of addiction. As humorous as it is to entertain the idea, I seriously doubt addiction comes into play with pregnancy.

 

 

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’.

Actually, male wishes seldom ever took precedence over female wishes. Although humans evolved through mutual sexual selection (as opposed to female only sexual selection, which we see in most other animals), male choice was always different to female choice. I won't go into the exhaustive details (that could, and does, fill a book), but suffice to say that men largely "peacock" their fitness in order to be chosen, and in turn, of the women who choose them, choose the women who best display their fitness. Regardless of a man's sex drive, it is always constrained by the female's sex drive (and vice versa). Believe it or not (most people don't), because of this selection pressure, both males and females have, on average, the same sex drive.

 

As such, it is highly unlikely that pregnancy would end up being, overall, a negative experience, and far more likely that it would be a positive experience. The statistics that I quoted from that article about risks of death are a fantastic example of this. Due to survival pressures, it seems obvious that the physical burdens of pregnancy would have presented a significant survival concern for hunter-gatherers living on the plains of Africa. It makes perfect sense then, that the risks of death via natural causes would be lessened when pregnant, and that risk avoidance would be heightened, in order to compensate for the physical limitations presented by carrying a baby. That these lessened risks continue for a year after childbirth is further evidence for an adaptation to a survival pressure. Women who did not have a decreased risk of death from natural and accidental causes during pregnancy --and for the following year when carrying a helpless child around-- would soon die out and be replaced by those that did. There was no doubt also some sexual selection going on too, with males choosing females who did not get sickly while pregnant, or who were more likely to die.

 

In effect, pregnancy is as harmless as it could possibly be given its nature and requirements, because it needed to be due to survival and sexual selection pressures in the millions of years humans were evolving on the African plains. Any variance we see among individuals is no doubt like all variances we see: a result of more or less genetic fitness.

 

 

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.

Given that I haven't yet read enough of your posts to discern the nuances of your writing style and how your personality shows through it, I'm having difficulty figuring out whether you are implying that you don't care for such debates, or you don't care for some specific aspects of this specific debate, or if you were just tired and cranky. If either of the former, then I submit that you might be interested in exercising some restraint from self-inflicted torture, and simply don't post such replies.

 

Although I do agree that flamebaiting religious people is a most enjoyable pastime. devil.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Double post. These forums are really screwy, really often. And slow. Oh well.

Edited by Mortukai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

With regard to the fact that the majority of the posts on this topic are from males who seem to have overruled any of the factual ideas put forward from the females who have first hand knowledge of what childbirth and raising a child is like, might I venture the idea that you may know the theories behind such things but not the physical aspects of it.

 

I'm not anti-abortion but I could never have aborted either of my offspring. I firmly believe that there are many reasons why a woman may decide that an abortion is the right option for her at that time and that it is HER right to do so. If she has a partner, I believe it should be a MUTUAL decision: if she is going to have to go through it all on her own, perhaps she has told the father and he wants no part in it then surely she has the right to make her own choice.

 

What if she wants the baby and the father doesn't, should she have to abort because HE says so? If she offered to proceed with pregnancy but absolved him of responsibility, wouldn't it be HER right to do so?

 

I believe that abortions which happen for medical grounds usually only happen after a lot of soul searching by both parents...are you saying that these abortions shouldn't take place?

 

I'm leaving this open to all not dedicating to any one poster....I would appreciate honest responses....I'd suggest that you try to put yourself in the woman's place.

 

Don't think that I'm anti male....I'm not. You can't know what goes through a woman's mind when she first learns that she's pregnant...I can't know what goes through a man's mind either!

 

It sounds like you're talking from textbooks: Naomi spoke from experience of both abortion and childbirth: I only speak from childbirth and parenting.

 

Not all childbirth memories are eradicated afterwards....there is also the risk of postnatal depression which is an insidious complaint that creeps up on you totally unawares....it can lead to attempts to kill yourself because you don't understand what is wrong with you. Mother love doesn't always happen instantly after birth..a mother can resent her baby for the pain it's caused her. Totally irrational to any male but it DOES happen. If it has happened to you once, then the chances of it happening in any subsequent pregnancies rise dramatically, which can be a reason for abortion to be considered. I can speak from experience on this illness which requires careful handling....I'm not sure that I could have handled another instance of it happening after the first!

Edited by Cerbera'sMum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum
Sorry double post! blush.gif Edited by Cerbera'sMum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

Sorry about that...multiple post! Slow board but I was sure that I stopped the transfer of post!

 

Mortukai inferred that my positive feelings towards pregnancy had been withheld because they would weaken my argument and that I'd shut the hell up when called on it. I had very little trouble during my pregnancies..no piles, no varicose veins, very little morning sickness but was very emotional throughout. Most of my problems came after childbirth....I had post natal depression but only mildly! OK so I tried to kill myself when baby was 3 or 4 months old but I got over it without help from father..he had to keep my anti depressants outta my reach but used to taunt me by leaving them in clear sight.

 

I had about 24 hours of labour with the first, had to have forceps delivery and that meant big cut! Bruises like you wouldn't believe which made sitting down or even lying down very uncomfortable and took 48 hours to come out.

 

On the other hand, 2nd pregnancy led to 3 hour labour from 1st contraction to actual birth, no cuts and no bruises...and no post natal depression!

 

As I said, my problems came afterwards! That's when most attention is focussed on baby and the new mother can feel left out. When I was being sterilised, there was a woman in for a termination because she'd had car accident and damaged her back and doctors told her she would have to lose baby to be treated! Another one was in for same reason because she'd had awful post natal depression and couldn't face it again....and her doctor agreed. Both had consulted with their partners and were mutual decisions.

 

I know of several young women who seem to think that abortion is a form of contraception....they didn't practise safe sex so when found themselves to be pregnant popped off down to abortion clinic and did the deed.....more than once! Now that is wrong!

Edited by Cerbera'sMum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

Ahh... the debate continues. However, I'll try to keep my points nice and short this time around. Some of my friends reading this stuff are accusing me of grandstanding. smile.gif

 

 

Well, if you read the article, you might notice how it mentions that less than half the deaths were from natural causes, and 75% of these were not related to pregnancy at all. The article mostly focuses on the reduction in risks of death from natural causes, stating, and I quote: "Like the overall mortality risk, the risk of death from natural causes was about 40% lower among women who were pregnant or had been pregnant in the past year than among nonpregnant women". Clearly this cannot be attribute to risk avoidance.

 

 

I wonder what qualifies as "death from natural causes" for women aged 15-40. I'm no doctor (not even a Tazmanian gynecologist), but I'm still leaning towards lifestyle changes (risk avoidance) as the underlying cause of these statistics, if only because I can't imagine what intrinsic property of pregnancy could otherwise explain them. However, I'm not armed with any research on this issue, so I'm not exactly arguing from a position of strength here.

 

As for the risks that come with induced abortions, I wholeheartedly agree with the point you're trying to make... it's not something that should be entered into lightly.

 

 

 

Err, I think you really missed my point.... by a long, long way. My point was that subjective experience, which you are holding up as some sort of holy grail of knowledge, is, scientifically speaking, the lowest form of evidence. It is notoriously unreliable, subject to dozens of socially dependant biases, inconsistent over time and context, and basically a big pile of sh!t that must only be resorted to when there is no other way of measuring something.

 

 

Now this is a perfect example of us talking past each other. I've ignored your point, and you've returned the compliment by running right past mine. smile.gif

 

*My* point is that a woman's experience with pregnancy is subjective, and knowable only to women. I'm *not* holding it up as a holy grail of understanding pregnancy... I'm holding it up as a holy grail of understanding how positive or negative women find pregnancy. Sure it's unreliable... but that's at least one step up from unknowable. Problem is, my stupidly-simplistic point has gotten us tangled up in a debate about the theory of knowledge instead. Let's save our ammunition for more worthy points of contention, eh?

 

On to questions of more substance...

 

 

 

Ok, let's look at this from an analogous angle. Consider assisted suicide. In all objectivity, if a person commits suicide, is it anyone's business but their own? Should anyone have to "persuade" the suicidal person against their decision? Should we simply shrug and say "Oh well, we weren't good enough to persuade them" if they get someone else to kill them?

 

 

Your argument here would be a good one *if* I were against assisted suicide. Problem is, I'm not.

 

I believe in the fundamental dignity of self-determination, and see no reason why, for someone in their right mind, that determination shouldn't also include when their lives end. (Yes, that's the sound of a different can of worms being opened. Perhaps a new thread on assisted suicide would be in order.)

 

That said, let me aid your side by pointing out that assisted suicide is quite different from abortion, based on who it impacts. I agree with you that the father *should* have a say in the matter (sans cases of rape, etc.) However, I fail to see how that can be enforced without jeopardizing the woman's self-determination in a very fundamental way. Of course, if you can come up with a solution that preserves both rights, I'll keep my mind open. smile.gif

 

 

 

No, if the laws were in proportion to biology, then women would have to buy men out of their baby. After all, they have the gift of being able to gestate a child. Men are denied that. Women have the biological control and power over the life of children. If the laws were attempting to provide a proportionate balance, one would imagine (if one had a sense of justice and equality) that compensation would be due men, not the other way around.

 

 

I suppose this is a perspective thing. Me, I thank my good fortune that, as a man, I will never have to experience first-hand any of the burdens that accompany this "gift" of being able to conceive. Let's face it... the man's biological role in the whole process involves screwing a girl for a few minutes (maybe a few hours if he's good)... and that's it. The women get to be saddled with all the burdens of pregnancy for months. The only equality is in the genetic heritage of the child, and that hardly seems to qualify as "work" for either parent. Seems to me like the balance of the contribution is on the woman's side.

 

As for women having a privilaged "biological control"... well, to tell you the truth, I'm not even sure what that means. Whatever it is, I think it's more apropos to be looking at the responsibilities involved instead of the privilages; the privilages look more theoretical to me than the pragmantic, day-to-day responsibilities that come with pregnancy.

 

 

 

You mention oppurtunity costs associated with staying home with the kids. Here's an idea: give the father custody. No? Well how about not having the kid in the first place? No? Then how about shutting the hell up because millions of mothers have done the same thing and no-one would be here if they hadn't.

 

 

Giving the father custody? It'd work if the father wanted the child... but in the case of fathers too stingy to voluntarily provide for the economic well-being of their kid, I doubt they'd be up for the much harder tasking of raising it. Not having the kid? Works for those who have no problems with abortion, but as you can imagine there are many who do, and not necessarily because they want the kid. Shutting the hell up? Now here we're just getting needlessly aggressive. smile.gif

 

 

 

Let's say that instead of a man being forced to pay for a child he didn't want, it's a woman being forced to pay for a child she didn't want. Let's take away her choice in the abortion, and give it all to the father, who decides, against her (irrelevant) wishes, that she's going to have the baby. Fast forward 9 months, and she is now paying child support for a child she never wanted.

...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? But why is it that when it's a man, we feel barely anything, thinking "Oh well, tough sh!t eh?", but when it's a woman, it's all of a sudden a moral outrage? Hmm? All of a sudden, despite it being the exact same situation reversed, it's oppresive and immoral.

...

*snip*

 

 

I liked this. Kudos!

 

Two small objections, though...

 

A woman refusing to pay for her children would be just as bad, in my mind, as a father refusing to pay. Therefore, her being forced to pay child support wouldn't be the source of my outrage. Rather, I'd be outraged by the fact that she was forced to forgo abortion against her wishes. Forcing women one way or another on this issue crosses a big red line in my eyes.

 

Objection two is that you assume that, because a woman refuses to have an abortion, this somehow frees the man of his responsibilities. If I may use a bit of latitude, let's liken an unwanted child to a catestrophic event, like a house fire. A man runs around throwing lit matches around the house, while the woman has the ability to put out the flames if anything catches alight. Now, if for some reason the woman refuses to do so, I'd argue that she bears half the responsibility for the resulting conflagration, but in no way does this absolve the man who set the fire in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, he shouldn't have been throwing matches around (having premarital sex without protection) in the first place.

 

 

 

That's a shame, as I'm sure you'd have at least been able to make a significant and thought-provoking contribution. I, for one, would love to engage you in a debate about the possibility of ethics being an intrinsic property of the universe or not. I'm sure you'd be a worthy opponent and fun could be had by all.

 

 

Thanks. smile.gif

 

 

 

Ahh, but these things are quite diffferent. They might not seem so, but they are. They work on principles of addiction. As humorous as it is to entertain the idea, I seriously doubt addiction comes into play with pregnancy.

 

 

Again, sex and pregnancy are two different things. And, judging by today's pop culture (I'll leave my own experience out of this), I'd say that sex is indeed very addictive... neurotically so. Besides, you don't even need addiction mechanisms when we've already got this huge sex drive built in to every psyche. I'm sure there isn't a single person over 16 in this forum who hasn't at one point or another had their short-term sexual desires cloud their better judgement.

 

 

 

Given that I haven't yet read enough of your posts to discern the nuances of your writing style and how your personality shows through it, I'm having difficulty figuring out whether you are implying that you don't care for such debates, or you don't care for some specific aspects of this specific debate, or if you were just tired and cranky.

 

Actually, that was me trying to use a little self-depricating humor. Guess it didn't quite carry across. So I guess I won't quit my non-existent day job to become a comedian... alas. On the other hand, I'll happily join you in a little religion-baiting any time.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

With regard to the fact that the majority of the posts on this topic are from males who seem to have overruled any of the factual ideas put forward from the females who have first hand knowledge of what childbirth and raising a child is like, might I venture the idea that you may know the theories behind such things but not the physical aspects of it.

The male:female ratio in this forum is no-one's fault but the female's who choose not to post here, and is inconsequential to the debate.

 

But as I've stated, we may not have the subjective physical experience of pregnancy, but this is, of course, unavoidable. Are our opinions thus void because we lack a womb? Are they of less merit because we lack vaginas? Is subjective experience really that important in an ethical debate? I submit that it is not.

 

 

I'm not anti-abortion but I could never have aborted either of my offspring. I firmly believe that there are many reasons why a woman may decide that an abortion is the right option for her at that time and that it is HER right to do so. If she has a partner, I believe it should be a MUTUAL decision: if she is going to have to go through it all on her own, perhaps she has told the father and he wants no part in it then surely she has the right to make her own choice.

 

What if she wants the baby and the father doesn't, should she have to abort because HE says so? If she offered to proceed with pregnancy but absolved him of responsibility, wouldn't it be HER right to do so?

 

I believe that abortions which happen for medical grounds usually only happen after a lot of soul searching by both parents...are you saying that these abortions shouldn't take place?

I'm not sure if you realise it, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been arguing.

 

 

It sounds like you're talking from textbooks: Naomi spoke from experience of both abortion and childbirth: I only speak from childbirth and parenting.

 

No, Naomi spoke from a meta-frame of victimization and patriarchal persecution. Moreso, her reactionary hysterics were inconcievably irrational and demonstrated her complete ineptitude at debating. Notice how I actually take the time to respond to your posts and other's in this debate: because such posts show reason and sensibility.

 

But now that you mention it, why hasn't anybody argued along the lines of the subjective experience of abortion? Since we all seem to value subjectivity so much, I'd be interested in hearing of the comforts and pleasantries of having one's womb vacuumed out, and how this compares to pregnancy.

 

 

Not all childbirth memories are eradicated afterwards... there is also the risk of postnatal depression which is an insidious complaint that creeps up on you totally unawares....it can lead to attempts to kill yourself because you don't understand what is wrong with you. Mother love doesn't always happen instantly after birth..a mother can resent her baby for the pain it's caused her. Totally irrational to any male but it DOES happen. If it has happened to you once, then the chances of it happening in any subsequent pregnancies rise dramatically, which can be a reason for abortion to be considered. I can speak from experience on this illness which requires careful handling....I'm not sure that I could have handled another instance of it happening after the first!

PND is, like all depression, an inability to cope with situations that other people can cope with. The primary risk-factors in PND are:

-Rapid and dramatic changes in hormone levels

-No longer being the centre of attention

-Realisation that a baby isn't the roses and gumdrop rain she thought it'd be

-Atypically painful childbirth

-Adjustment to the lifestyle demands of a baby

 

In a way, it's kinda like when she wants a puppy, and you explain to her the reality of having a puppy, and she just nods and it goes in one ear and out the other while she's daydreaming of all the fun she's going to have with her puppy, and how much happiness it'll bring her. Then within the first day of actually having a puppy right there with her, she realises that they sh*t, piss, bark, yelp, chew things, whimper for attention, and eat anything they can see. I mean, this is all a dog really does, but it doesn't hit her until she has one. Then she gets all annoyed and depressed that she's not frollicking through fields of daisies in a blueberry dress with her puppy bouncing cutely all around her. (I've had personal experience with this one, with an ex).

 

Only with PND, you multiply that by a hundred, add some hormone changes which remove her beloved emotional roller coaster, push her out of the picture and put all the attention on the puppy, and force her to change her habits and sleep patterns.

 

Some people can cope with that, some people can't, and get suicidal. Depression isn't a "sickness" that is "caused" by hormone levels. The hormone levels are what characterizes depression, so to invoke them as a cause is tautological. Depression is caused simply by being unable to deal with certain situations. It is a biological response to play on the sympathy of others in order that they are aided in their time of need. It's an evolutionary survival strategy for the weak: when they can't deal with something (due to weak genes), they become depressed, so that others will help them and they can survive. Weak people who didn't get depressed, didn't get help, and thus died out. Suicide attempts are nearly always a cry for help precisely for this reason.

 

It might sound like I'm coming down extremely harsh on depression. Fvck that. I've been through it. For a few years of my life. I've attempted suicide 3 times. These things don't prevent me from seeing depression for what it is. In fact, they help me keep things in perspective so I don't slip into depression again. Only by recognizing and accepting one's weaknesses, can one grow stronger.

 

Post-natal depression is just depression that happens to occur after childbirth and as such has more clearly identifable risk-factors. There are no "causes" because if you apply the same "cause" to multiple people, each will respond differently, and thus nothing has been "caused", there are only risk-factors, which are mediated by the inherent propensities of those affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

But as I've stated, we may not have the subjective physical experience of pregnancy, but this is, of course, unavoidable. Are our opinions thus void because we lack a womb? Are they of less merit because we lack vaginas? Is subjective experience really that important in an ethical debate? I submit that it is not.
Ok....your points about your opinions being less valued or of lesser merit because of your lack of female genitalia are meaningless, as indeed you don't have them or the hormones that go with them. I HAVE not attempted to put forward a male point of view here because I can't and I recognise my inability openly.

 

 

I'm not anti-abortion but I could never have aborted either of my offspring. I firmly believe that there are many reasons why a woman may decide that an abortion is the right option for her at that time and that it is HER right to do so. If she has a partner, I believe it should be a MUTUAL decision: if she is going to have to go through it all on her own, perhaps she has told the father and he wants no part in it then surely she has the right to make her own choice.

 

What if she wants the baby and the father doesn't, should she have to abort because HE says so? If she offered to proceed with pregnancy but absolved him of responsibility, wouldn't it be HER right to do so?

I'm not sure if you realise it, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been arguing.Actually I thought you'd been arguing that only the FATHER has any right to demand an abortion if he doesn't want a child to be born!

 

 

It sounds like you're talking from textbooks: Naomi spoke from experience of both abortion and childbirth: I only speak from childbirth and parenting.

 

Notice how I actually take the time to respond to your posts and other's in this debate: because such posts show reason and sensibility.

 

But now that you mention it, why hasn't anybody argued along the lines of the subjective experience of abortion? Since we all seem to value subjectivity so much, I'd be interested in hearing of the comforts and pleasantries of having one's womb vacuumed out, and how this compares to pregnancy.

By the way I thought most abortions these days were done by means of drugs and induced labour ...not by vacuuming a womb.....or by means of a D&C in early cases?

 

 

Not all childbirth memories are eradicated afterwards... there is also the risk of postnatal depression which is an insidious complaint that creeps up on you totally unawares....it can lead to attempts to kill yourself because you don't understand what is wrong with you. Mother love doesn't always happen instantly after birth..a mother can resent her baby for the pain it's caused her. Totally irrational to any male but it DOES happen. If it has happened to you once, then the chances of it happening in any subsequent pregnancies rise dramatically, which can be a reason for abortion to be considered. I can speak from experience on this illness which requires careful handling....I'm not sure that I could have handled another instance of it happening after the first!
PND is, like all depression, an inability to cope with situations that other people can cope with. The primary risk-factors in PND are:

-Rapid and dramatic changes in hormone levels

-No longer being the centre of attention

-Realisation that a baby isn't the roses and gumdrop rain she thought it'd be

-Atypically painful childbirth

-Adjustment to the lifestyle demands of a baby

 

Only with PND, you multiply that by a hundred, add some hormone changes which remove her beloved emotional roller coaster, push her out of the picture and put all the attention on the puppy, and force her to change her habits and sleep patterns.

 

Some people can cope with that, some people can't, and get suicidal. Depression isn't a "sickness" that is "caused" by hormone levels. The hormone levels are what characterizes depression, so to invoke them as a cause is tautological. Depression is caused simply by being unable to deal with certain situations. It is a biological response to play on the sympathy of others in order that they are aided in their time of need. It's an evolutionary survival strategy for the weak: when they can't deal with something (due to weak genes), they become depressed, so that others will help them and they can survive. Weak people who didn't get depressed, didn't get help, and thus died out. Suicide attempts are nearly always a cry for help precisely for this reason.

 

It might sound like I'm coming down extremely harsh on depression. Fvck that. I've been through it. For a few years of my life. I've attempted suicide 3 times. These things don't prevent me from seeing depression for what it is. In fact, they help me keep things in perspective so I don't slip into depression again. Only by recognizing and accepting one's weaknesses, can one grow stronger.

 

Post-natal depression is just depression that happens to occur after childbirth and as such has more clearly identifable risk-factors. There are no "causes" because if you apply the same "cause" to multiple people, each will respond differently, and thus nothing has been "caused", there are only risk-factors, which are mediated by the inherent propensities of those affected.

 

Has experience no place in a debate....you cite the experiences of women you've known as basis for your reasonings ...but won't accept that there are differing experiences for women...no two women share the same experience of childbearing....in fact it is rare for any two pregnancies to be identical even for the same woman.

 

You, however, dismiss women's feelings as being of lower importance than any male's. You've been damning in your opinions about women and pregnancy.....and comparing babies to puppies is ridiculous...you can take a puppy to the pound or let it loose on the streets or drown it....are you inferring that a baby can be dealt with in such a fashion....I thought not.

 

With regard to PND:

Introduction

 

Having a baby can be an emotional and stressful time. After the baby is born, many mothers feel tearful and depressed. This is called postnatal depression (PND) and it affects around one in ten women in the UK. PND can last for anything from a few days to few months. PND is generally divided into three main types:

 

'Baby blues': This is the most common type of depression. It doesn’t last very long, starting around the third day after birth and going by around the tenth day. Mothers may feel tearful and irritable, but no medical treatment is needed.

Postnatal depression: If the low feelings that many women feel straight after birth don’t clear up, postnatal depression can develop. Women with postnatal depression feel depressed for much of the time, with little sign of it going away. PND can usually be noticed in the first 4-6 weeks after birth, although in some cases, it can take several months to develop. It usually needs to be treated.

Postnatal psychosis: This is a rare, but severe, form of depression. It develops in about 1 in 1000 mothers. Some of the symptoms are irrational behaviour, confusion and suicidal thoughts. Women with postnatal psychosis often need specialist psychiatric treatment

Although postnatal depression is more common in women, men can be affected too. The birth of a new baby can be a stressful time for both parents. Some fathers feel unable to cope or feel that they aren’t giving the mother all the support she needs. Fathers can also find it upsetting if the new baby is getting all their partner’s attention.

 

Postnatal depression in both men and women can put strain on the parents’ relationship. This can cause the break up of some relationships, which is why it is important to recognise the symptoms early and get treatment.

 

 

Were you aware that PND is also common in males? Perhaps the differences between the genders in this circumstance isn't so pronounced as previously thought. Males can feel challenged and threatened by a baby just as much as females.

 

And I apologise for having gone off topic of abortion.

 

(I had to ask Cerbera (Thanks) to help show me how to use multiple quote tags!)

Edited by Cerbera'sMum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Ok....your points about your opinions being less valued or of lesser merit because of your lack of female genitalia are meaningless, as indeed you don't have them or the hormones that go with them. I HAVE not attempted to put forward a male point of view here because I can't and I recognise my inability openly.

Erm... So... my points about male opinions being no less valid for lack of female genitalia are meaningless.... because I lack female genitalia. This sounds like you are implying that only humans with female genitals and the hormones that go with them can decide which opinions are valid or not. Or perhaps this is a subconscious manifestation of the belief that only women are entitled to claim victim status?

 

I'll assume that this is not what you meant, and so I'll chalk it up to "lost in translation".

 

However, you raise an interesing point RE: your having not put forward a male point of view. I don't think it's so much that you can't, because I'm assuming you've been granted similar capacities for machiavalian intelligence as most of the rest of us. I'm thinking it's more that you don't think it's relevant. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

See, I've done my best to account for both male and female concerns on abortion. It seems most females assume that only female concerns are of any consequence. Indeed, the entirety of the "woman's choice" argument is built on the assumption that the male point of view is irrelevant to abortion. I'm attempting to remedy that oversight.

 

 

Actually I thought you'd been arguing that only the FATHER has any right to demand an abortion if he doesn't want a child to be born!

Then I prescribe reading my posts, specifically the parts where I talk about what should happen in different combinations of parental decisions.

 

 

By the way I thought most abortions these days were done by means of drugs and induced labour ...not by vacuuming a womb.....or by means of a D&C in early cases?

I've so far in my life avoided the necessity to gain insight into the exact methodology of killing and removing a fetus from a woman's uterus. I'd not be suprised if they simply had a pill that the woman could take, due to the disproportionate allocation of medical funding into women's health over men's. Ever heard of an androcologist? Yeah, they don't exist.

 

But anyway, I'm sure someone will be able to enlighten us as to the experience of a modern abortion. Perhaps they'll also be able to shed some light on the 50% increase in risk of death for females who choose such a path.

 

 

Has experience no place in a debate....you cite the experiences of women you've known as basis for your reasonings ...but won't accept that there are differing experiences for women...no two women share the same experience of childbearing....in fact it is rare for any two pregnancies to be identical even for the same woman.

Erm, I think you're distorting my words to fit your assumptions. I've never discredited anyone else's experiences of pregnancy, I have, in fact, stated quite the opposite: that each woman's experience is subjective and different. This is why it is retarded to rely on experience to form any sort of ethical standing beyond moral relativism (where anything can be right from any individual's perspective). I'm questioning how much of my posts you've actually comprehended, and how much you have skipped over and filled in with your assumptions of what I "must" think.

 

 

You, however, dismiss women's feelings as being of lower importance than any male's. You've been damning in your opinions about women and pregnancy.....and comparing babies to puppies is ridiculous...you can take a puppy to the pound or let it loose on the streets or drown it....are you inferring that a baby can be dealt with in such a fashion....I thought not.

Do I? Please quote the exact text where I have stated anything to the effect that a woman's feelings are of lower importance than a males. Take your time, there's a lot to read through.

 

Have I been "damning" in my opinions about women and pregnancy? Why is arguing that pregnancy isn't the big horrible 9 months of lonely torture that some women make it out to be, "damning"? I'd gravitate towards "redeeming" myself, but perhaps you mean that I'm being damning by removing some woman's foundations for claiming victimization? Umm, oops?

 

Re puppies:

-Some people DO give children to adoption agencies. This is legal for humans and puppies.

-Some people DO leave their children to live on the streets (I had such a friend once). This is illegal for humans and puppies.

-Some people DO commit infanticide. This is illegal for humans and puppies.

 

Comparing puppies to babies is not ridiculous at all. Unless you assume that humans are not animals. I don't.

 

 

Were you aware that PND is also common in males? Perhaps the differences between the genders in this circumstance isn't so pronounced as previously thought. Males can feel challenged and threatened by a baby just as much as females.

Yep. And thanks. I'm not sure what you were hoping to achieve, but you just strengthened my argument that PND is no different to normal depression, and is merely the inability to cope with the stresses of a changing situation. Men are subject to less changes with a newborn child, because they are not subject to the hormones, the birth pains, and they usually have a more realistic appraisal of what having a child will be like, so it makes perfect sense that there would be less men who suffer from PND than women. But it's all still just an inability to cope with stress, and an adaptive response to garner sympathy and aid from one's social network.

 

I don't know what you are going on about with "gender differences" here, because I only very indirectly implied gender differences by way of mentioning some of the risk factors involved. Unless you mistook my anecdotal metaphor of the puppy, which was merely expanding on the third risk factor that I mentioned, namely the realisation that a baby isn't a fairy tale.

 

 

I wonder what qualifies as "death from natural causes" for women aged 15-40. I'm no doctor (not even a Tazmanian gynecologist), but I'm still leaning towards lifestyle changes (risk avoidance) as the underlying cause of these statistics, if only because I can't imagine what intrinsic property of pregnancy could otherwise explain them. However, I'm not armed with any research on this issue, so I'm not exactly arguing from a position of strength here.

They defined death from natural causes as death from medical conditions, like cancer and diseases of the circulatory system (the two mentioned in the article). As far as I know, risk avoidance doesn't have much of an impact on cancer or circulatory diseases.

 

 

Your argument here would be a good one *if* I were against assisted suicide. Problem is, I'm not.

Cool. I have no problem with assisted suicide either. But what about assisted murder?

 

 

I suppose this is a perspective thing. Me, I thank my good fortune that, as a man, I will never have to experience first-hand any of the burdens that accompany this "gift" of being able to conceive. Let's face it... the man's biological role in the whole process involves screwing a girl for a few minutes (maybe a few hours if he's good)... and that's it. The women get to be saddled with all the burdens of pregnancy for months. The only equality is in the genetic heritage of the child, and that hardly seems to qualify as "work" for either parent. Seems to me like the balance of the contribution is on the woman's side.

Man, I see this so often it's not funny. Let me ask you something, can you just walk up to any woman in the street, and impregnate her? Like, just pull your dick out and stick it in, bust a nut, and away you go? No? Hmm. I wonder why. After all, isn't that all that men do in reproduction? Are we possibly missing something?

 

Oh yeah! Courtship! And mate choice! Do you thank your good fortune that, as a man, you'll be expected to provide for a woman and her children (some of whom may be yours), with her contributing almost nothing financially? Do you thank your good fortune that you are expected to approach and to court women, while they simply accept or reject at no personal risk or cost? Do you thank your good fortune that you are expected to carry the weight of sexual effort while they lay there like corpses?

 

How many women approach men? How many pay for shared meals? How many even pay their own way? How many financially support men in relationships? How many would allow a man to stay at home and look after the kids while they work and pay the bills? How many initiate sex more than the male does?

 

Call me crazy, but I'd say that overall, men and women contribute AT LEAST equally to reproduction. We each have different roles in reproduction. You can't compare our roles by only looking at one.

 

 

A woman refusing to pay for her children would be just as bad, in my mind, as a father refusing to pay. Therefore, her being forced to pay child support wouldn't be the source of my outrage. Rather, I'd be outraged by the fact that she was forced to forgo abortion against her wishes. Forcing women one way or another on this issue crosses a big red line in my eyes.

Why does only forcing women cross a red line? What about forcing men?

 

 

Objection two is that you assume that, because a woman refuses to have an abortion, this somehow frees the man of his responsibilities. If I may use a bit of latitude, let's liken an unwanted child to a catestrophic event, like a house fire. A man runs around throwing lit matches around the house, while the woman has the ability to put out the flames if anything catches alight. Now, if for some reason the woman refuses to do so, I'd argue that she bears half the responsibility for the resulting conflagration, but in no way does this absolve the man who set the fire in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, he shouldn't have been throwing matches around (having premarital sex without protection) in the first place.

And maybe, just maybe, the same could be said for her.

 

 

Again, sex and pregnancy are two different things. And, judging by today's pop culture (I'll leave my own experience out of this), I'd say that sex is indeed very addictive... neurotically so. Besides, you don't even need addiction mechanisms when we've already got this huge sex drive built in to every psyche. I'm sure there isn't a single person over 16 in this forum who hasn't at one point or another had their short-term sexual desires cloud their better judgement.

Sex and pregnancy are different in the same sense that hunger and eating are different. Hunger is a feeling which evolved to make us eat, which kept our bodies alive. Sex and the desire for it evolved to make us reproduce, or in other words, keep our genes alive.

 

Now I'm not saying that sex is purely reproductive. In most species, it is. But human females evolved a hidden estrus to gain more power over their reproduction. Part of that hidden estrus required females to feel like sex all the time, because if they were only horny when they were fertile, then their hidden estrus is no longer hidden. In response, males had to have sex with them all the time in the hope that they'd catch their ovulation. Our (humanity's) desires to have sex all the time are merely our body's strategies for reproduction. We don't have sex because it is pleasurable, it is pleasurable because our bodies want us to do it in order to make babies.

 

Today's pop culture is merely taking advantage of our biological desires to reproduce through sex, just as they take advantage of our desires to stay alive by eating. Only most humans eat every single day, and few humans fvck every single day despite biological urges to do so. The effect is simply like advertising cookies to a person who hasn't eaten in weeks. It's a brilliant marketing strategy, and no matter how many people are "aware" of the gratuitous and crass "sex sells" advertising gimmicks, few can go against their body's desires, so the strategy will never lose its power.

 

Anyway, I'm digressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

Double post. Again. Stupid buggy forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

 

They defined death from natural causes as death from medical conditions, like cancer and diseases of the circulatory system (the two mentioned in the article).  As far as I know, risk avoidance doesn't have much of an impact on cancer or circulatory diseases.

 

 

Why not? Smoking less, drinking less, eating better can all play roles in those diseases. (Mind you, the wierd cravings for ice cream and pickles probably don't count as eating better.) Of course, the effects of smoking, drinking, and diet are all rather long-term things, so I'm not sure 9 months is a long enough span for these behavioral changes to impact the statistics. Anyway, I'm not trying to dispute you on this point... I'm just wondering what the underlying mechanism is behind these numbers.

 

 

 

Your argument here would be a good one *if* I were against assisted suicide. Problem is, I'm not.

Cool. I have no problem with assisted suicide either. But what about assisted murder?

 

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this... you kinda lost me. *shrugs* Sorry.

 

 

After all, isn't that all that men do in reproduction? Are we possibly missing something?

 

Oh yeah! Courtship! And mate choice! (...)  Do you thank your good fortune that you are expected to approach and to court women, while they simply accept or reject at no personal risk or cost? Do you thank your good fortune that you are expected to carry the weight of sexual effort while they lay there like corpses?

 

 

I'll try to avoid inferring something about your ex girlfriend from that last question... after all, you could be been just speaking in general. Suffice to say, if the girl is just laying there without doing anything, that's not normal. That's atypically lousy. There are definitely others who are much better and more considerate of their partners. smile.gif

 

With regard to your first few questions, again, that's a perspective thing. I don't regard chasing after girls as a burden; much the opposite. Getting rejected isn't fun, but you're damn right I thank my good fortune that I get to choose which girl I want to pursue. Frankly, it would suck to have my choice limited to set of people who chose me; it would be less effort and less risk, but without any guarantee that I'd get who I really wanted.

 

Besides, here we're straying from a strictly biological look at reproduction to a more sociological view, and I was careful to point out that I was considering biological differences only. Different cultures have vastly different courtship habits. A case in point is arranged marriages, which reduces the "effort" of courtship to close to zero. The biological contributions are universal... the sociological trappings are not.

 

 

Do you thank your good fortune that, as a man, you'll be expected to provide for a woman and her children (some of whom may be yours), with her contributing almost nothing financially?

(...)

How many women approach men? How many pay for shared meals? How many even pay their own way?

 

 

Funny you should ask that. Just last Sunday I went with my date to the movies, and before I could stop her she paid for both our tickets. (I made her promise that next time I'll do the buying.) Of course, she's an exceptional girl in many, many ways, but I suspect that the tickets thing is a small example of a larger trend between girls and guys nowadays.

 

Look around. One of the biggest trends of the last century, and especially the last half century, is that more women work. In fact, it's quite possible that a lot of the problems in society nowadays are rooted in the fact that most mothers *aren't* at home watching over their children, like they were only 50 years ago. Social gender equality is slowly becoming a lot more real than you might think.

 

 

 

Rather, I'd be outraged by the fact that she was forced to forgo abortion against her wishes. Forcing women one way or another on this issue crosses a big red line in my eyes.

Why does only forcing women cross a red line? What about forcing men?

 

 

If babies were grown in artificial uteruses a la Brave New World, I'd probably agree. Then both parents' would be equal, since neither of their bodies would be impacted by the decision. But as it is, abortion or pregnancy impact the woman's body in addition to the fetus, and not the man's. *That's* what makes forcing women wrong. If I may use a somewhat specious analogy, it's much easier to cut off someone else's limb than your own.

 

 

...let's liken an unwanted child to a catestrophic event, like a house fire. (...) Maybe, just maybe, he shouldn't have been throwing matches around (having premarital sex without protection) in the first place.

And maybe, just maybe, the same could be said for her.

 

 

Agreed. For the girls out there, don't buy into any bullsh*t excuses... insist they use condoms.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

(NOTE: This post is irrelevant to the topic at hand... feel free to skip)

 

On a personal note, I'll be taking a vacation from the forums for a little while. I guess that means that others will get to have the last words in those particular debates I've had the pleasure of contributing to. smile.gif

 

I hope you guys enjoyed some of my posts... I've enjoyed being here. I'll be back later for more when I have the time.

 

Ciao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

Ok....your points about your opinions being less valued or of lesser merit because of your lack of female genitalia are meaningless, as indeed you don't have them or the hormones that go with them. I HAVE not attempted to put forward a male point of view here because I can't and I recognise my inability openly.
Erm... So... my points about male opinions being no less valid for lack of female genitalia are meaningless.... because I lack female genitalia. This sounds like you are implying that only humans with female genitals and the hormones that go with them can decide which opinions are valid or not. However, you raise an interesing point RE: your having not put forward a male point of view. I don't think it's so much that you can't, because I'm assuming you've been granted similar capacities for machiavalian intelligence as most of the rest of us. I'm thinking it's more that you don't think it's relevant. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

No I wouldn't attempt to put forward a point of view from another's perspective that I'm not familiar with...I don't know how male minds work so I can't make assumptions about their ideals. You just assume that I think it's not relevant....I haven't said that.

 

 

See, I've done my best to account for both male and female concerns on abortion. It seems most females assume that only female concerns are of any consequence. Indeed, the entirety of the "woman's choice" argument is built on the assumption that the male point of view is irrelevant to abortion.

 

At the end of the day, it's not the man who has to carry the baby to term..since you lack the equipment to do so, so why labour the point that it's a woman's choice to terminate or not as being wrong.....you aren't the one who has to do it, in fact you're incapable of doing it so why should it be your right to decide that a woman you've impregnated must carry your child to term just because YOU want her to?

 

On a side note..is that what this topic is about.....Has someone found herself carrying your child and terminated it? If so, I wonder why.

 

 

Have I been "damning" in my opinions about women and pregnancy? Why is arguing that pregnancy isn't the big horrible 9 months of lonely torture that some women make it out to be, "damning"? I'd gravitate towards "redeeming" myself, but perhaps you mean that I'm being damning by removing some woman's foundations for claiming victimization? Umm, oops?

 

Why do you insist that women claim unwanted pregnancy as being victimisation by men ?I haven't ever viewed it as such, I always felt it took two to make a baby so both have equal responsiblities as to protect against it happening, unless it is desired outcome of BOTH partners.

 

 

I suppose this is a perspective thing. Me, I thank my good fortune that, as a man, I will never have to experience first-hand any of the burdens that accompany this "gift" of being able to conceive. Let's face it... the man's biological role in the whole process involves screwing a girl for a few minutes (maybe a few hours if he's good)... and that's it. The women get to be saddled with all the burdens of pregnancy for months. The only equality is in the genetic heritage of the child, and that hardly seems to qualify as "work" for either parent. Seems to me like the balance of the contribution is on the woman's side.
Oh yeah! Courtship! And mate choice! Do you thank your good fortune that, as a man, you'll be expected to provide for a woman and her children (some of whom may be yours), with her contributing almost nothing financially? Do you thank your good fortune that you are expected to approach and to court women, while they simply accept or reject at no personal risk or cost? Do you thank your good fortune that you are expected to carry the weight of sexual effort while they lay there like corpses?

How many women approach men? How many pay for shared meals? How many even pay their own way? How many financially support men in relationships? How many would allow a man to stay at home and look after the kids while they work and pay the bills? How many initiate sex more than the male does?

 

I hate to think where you got your ideas of women from! I have paid my own way with my partner for 10 years (by working for free in his business when I could have gone out to work and earned a wage); I also often take us out for a meal and pay for it myself with my earnings from OUR business (now that I'm a partner in it!)...I have been known to initiate sex on occasions but some men seem to get bothered by a woman's being dominant sexually...I can't think why! As for supporting my mate...we wouldn't now a business unless I'd been prepared to help out with the paperwork and accounts for free at the start because he couldn't do it and we certainly couldn't afford to pay someone to do it for us then. (We turned over £232k before VAT last tax year....just so that you realise that it's not a piddling little business worth nothing! We are both proud of what we've achieved....he has never felt that I've not done my share or pulled my weight! Oh and I've never "lain there like a corpse" - I always use my muscles to best effect! tounge.gif

 

(@jheath enjoy your vacation from the forums...I've enjoyed your posts.)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cerbera'sMum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

On a side note..is that what this topic is about.....Has someone found herself carrying your child and terminated it? If so, I wonder why.

Haha. I was waiting for something like this to pop up. It always does when talking to with women. I'm surprised you refrained for this long. Naomi had much less restraint.

 

No, I've never had a girl abort a baby I wanted. I've never had a girl abort a baby. The closest I've come was two miscarriages and some false positives. But if a girl of mine ever did get pregnant because she forgot the pill or lied about it and I wasn't using a condom, then I'd want to have a kid because I love kids. I'm not quite ready for one yet, so I'm trying to avoid one, but if it happened, I'd take it like a Man and become a father. But you can bet your ass I'd be pissed if some bitch killed my kid against my wishes. f*cking A I'd be pissed. So would you if the situation was reversed, and your man tricked you into taking some pill which aborted your baby. And if that wouldn't piss you off, then you are not a woman I think should be breeding.

 

And your underhanded implication that a girl wouldn't want to carry my baby to term is quite humorous. I enjoy a pretty good success with many very attractive girls, who seem to have much more trouble getting over me than I do getting over them, if the number of times they've called me up crying to get back with me is any indicator. I treat my girls exceptionally better than they are used to, but they inevitably disappoint with their irrational fits of spontaneous jealousy.

 

 

At the end of the day, it's not the man who has to carry the baby to term..since you lack the equipment to do so, so why labour the point that it's a woman's choice to terminate or not as being wrong.....you aren't the one who has to do it, in fact you're incapable of doing it so why should it be your right to decide that a woman you've impregnated must carry your child to term just because YOU want her to?

Because it's my fvcking child too. I don't give a sh!t who gestates the fvcking kid, if it's gestated in a box or a pig. It's my kid as much as it is hers.

 

Picture this: you pay some sum of money to BMW to make you a custom car. You really want this car, and you know it's gonna be awesome to have your own custom BMW. But they are the ones who have to make it in their factories. But then, they decide they don't want to make it anymore, and so they destroy the whole thing that has been made so far. Would you be pissed?

 

Or if that analogy is too disconnected for you, picture this: pretend you're a man, and it's 4 days after your woman has given birth to your new baby girl. She's adorable and you get excited every day to come home from work and see her. So you come home from work, and hug your woman in the kitchen, and ask how the baby has been. She says, in a nonchalant way, "Oh, I drowned her today." The colour drains from your face, and your voice sounds hollow and dry as you mouth "What?", and she looks at you with a look of resignation and says "Yeah, she just kept crying and annoying me, and when I breast fed her she sucked too hard and hurt my nipple, and I can't get any sleep, and I hate changing her nappies all the time, so I figured it was too much to put up with, and since it was my body that she came out of, and since I'm the one who breast feeds her every 3 hours, and since you're at work most of the day so I'm left looking after her, I thought it was my right to decide what to do with her, so I just drowned her. Her body's in the bin out back".

 

We're not talking about just making something that belongs to more than the factory that made it, we're talking about another human life. An abortion is willfully killing a child that is as much the father's as it is the mother's, and is also a living being. Where it was made, whether germany france or her womb, is entirely irrelevant. Everything has to be made somewhere. Where it was made is not as important as what it is. Once a child is born, we consider it to "belong" to both parents, but also to exist as an individual sentient being. Terminating its life at any point thereafter is a crime, no matter which parent does so. Neglecting to provide it with sustenance at any point thereafter is also a crime, no matter which parent does so. What is the difference when it is in the womb? The only difference is that it's harder to willingly cut off sustenance to the developing baby, and requires a procedure to terminate its life. Technically, it's a parasite while in the womb. But technically, it's also a parasite outside of the womb: "Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

 

Left alone, so long as the genetical material is good, a fertilized egg (fertilized by male sperm) will grow into a human child. Indeed, once fertilized, the egg IS a human, at an early stage of development, just as a child is a human, at a less early stage of development, and old people are human, at a late stage of development. It's a human the moment it is fertilized. Before that, it's just another cell that is part of a human. Once fertilized, it is an individual human with its own full set of genetic material which predetermines it to grow into an adult.

 

At the end of the day, it's a human being. The gestation period is far, far from the end of the day. It's way back at the beginning. The "end of the day" is when the human dies. Abortion isn't an issue that only concerns pregnancy. It's an issue that concerns human life. Human life through sexual reproduction (requires at least two genders to contribute their genetic material). Abortion is terminating human life before it has a chance to experience a fraction of its potential to experience. Abortion is one or more people's children.

 

Reducing the issue to "well pregnancy is a bit of a bitch and it's my body so yeah" is like reducing all of genocide into "well my gun was pointing at him and my finger was twitching so yeah", or reducing all of suicide to "well it's their life I guess, and their body, so yeah".

 

There's much more to suicide than the preceding choices of the person who commits it. There's much more to genecide than the moment the killing happens. And there's much more to abortion than where the baby is formed.

 

Why are people so motherfvcking blind as to not be able to see past their own immediate selfish concerns? Or rather, why can't people see past the selfish concerns of women, because we seem rather adept at seeing past the selfish concerns of men, to the point of assuming male selfishishness a priori?

 

 

Why do you insist that women claim unwanted pregnancy as being victimisation by men ?I haven't ever viewed it as such, I always felt it took two to make a baby so both have equal responsiblities as to protect against it happening, unless it is desired outcome of BOTH partners.

So you recognize that it takes two to make a baby, but because it biologically only requires one to gestate it, somehow the second party no longer has a say once the baby is made? Could I please see your argument showing when and why male concerns cease to matter, or at least, when and why they matter significantly less so than the female's, such that hers always take precedence?

 

And why is "protecting against a baby happening" an issue for both genders, but "killing a baby once it has happened" only an issue for one gender, while "raising a baby once born" is an issue for both again? Why are males cut out of the picture exclusively while the baby is gestating? Any arguments relying solely on "females have a womb" will be discounted for reasons expanded on above.

 

 

I hate to think where you got your ideas of women from! I have paid my own way with my partner for 10 years (by working for free in his business when I could have gone out to work and earned a wage); I also often take us out for a meal and pay for it myself with my earnings from OUR business (now that I'm a partner in it!)...I have been known to initiate sex on occasions but some men seem to get bothered by a woman's being dominant sexually...I can't think why! As for supporting my mate...we wouldn't now a business unless I'd been prepared to help out with the paperwork and accounts for free at the start because he couldn't do it and we certainly couldn't afford to pay someone to do it for us then. (We turned over £232k before VAT last tax year....just so that you realise that it's not a piddling little business worth nothing! We are both proud of what we've achieved....he has never felt that I've not done my share or pulled my weight! Oh and I've never "lain there like a corpse" - I always use my muscles to best effect!

Re: my comment on "laying there like a corpse", that was mainly added for humour, but it's a disturbing trend that I've noticed, and that many of my friends who are also successful with attractive women have noticed: that the more attractive a girl is, the less good she is in bed, because they are just so used to everything being given to them. The best chicks in bed are the 7's and 8's, because they put in some fvcking effort, the 9's can be ok, but the 10's are just plain lazy. Anyway, that's just something anecdotal that has been picked up by every guy I know over the years. It was mainly added for me to laugh at.

 

Ok, using yourself in an attempt to disprove a rule is silly. You can't disprove a generalization by pointing to one deviation as an example. The reality is that 90% of women who marry, marry up. That means they marry men who have more money than they do. If you include status into that, then 99% of women marry up: marrying men with more money and higher status. The exceptions are exactly that: exceptions. The remaining 1% marry for love.

 

Haha. Who am I kidding. They marry for sex.

 

But you're not even that much of an exception. Sure, you might contribute perfectly equally in your relationship. I'd be doubtful, inclined more towards you contributing less than 40% of the financial effort, but I'm just guessing and it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it's highly unlikely you would have put up with a husband who contributed less financially than you did. Maybe for a very short while, if the prospects of change where high, but certainly not if you expected to be financially supporting him for any length of time. There are extremely few women who would ever support a man, despite the vast majority of men having absolutely no problem with supporting women. You might consider your contribution you duty in the interest of equality. He most likely considers it a helpful bonus.

 

Being a modern young male who dates a number of modern young females, and who also counts a number of them as friends, and who also has many similar male friends who also date similar females, I can safely say that if a male doesn't pay for a date, he is considered cheap, or weak, or both. I've seen it personally, but I also have a good friend who got very annoyed and frustrated with her guy because he insisted on treating her as an equal in everything. He would ask her opinion on things, let her decide what she wanted to do, let her pay her own way for movies, meals, outings, etc, and worse, wouldn't be persistant in initiating sex. She got so frustrated with his male ineptitude, that she left him for another guy, who she had NOTHING in common with. She got bored with him 2 weeks later, then went back to the first dude. Now she's thinking of cheating on him because he is still treating her as an equal and not being persistant enough in initiating sex (ie: they still haven't f*cked because he hasn't broken through her token last-minute resistance). Things have not changed. Mating and courting are still as they were 100 thousand years ago. The details and options available have changed, but the basics haven't. Women are attracted to men who lead, who have power, confidence, status, mystery, control, are a challenge, tease them, put up with their sh*t, and take what they want. Men who are "nice", treat her as an equal, are sensitive, considerate, compassionate, fail her sh!t-tests, and are open with their feelings, are incredibly unattractive to women, and often find themselves hearing "Let's just be friends", alternatively known by those in the know as "The kiss of death". I should know, I used to be a nice guy. It's a great way to make female friends who are entirely unattracted to you. But even the most ball-busting, feminist b!tch will turn into a giggly little schoolgirl if you treat her like she isn't worth your time in the right way.

 

It's possible I know more about courtship and mating (ie: picking up) than anyone here on this entire 60,000+ members forum, from experience and extensive reading and personal connections. I get my ideas about women from men who are highly successful with them, and from women themselves. Not from what they say, because what they say is invariably worth approximately dick, but from their behaviour. It's very safe to say that the vast majority of women do not want equality. They don't even want to be given special priviledges (though they say they do). What they really want, deep down, is a man to lead and dominate them. A man who is going somewhere in life, and who will choose to allow them along for the ride. A man who will raise their social status. They all want a man who is way cooler than they are. Any man who is not, who is equal with them or less than them, is a loser who will be dumped the second a real man comes along.

 

We are not nearing gender equality. And we never will, until sexually attractive traits change, and that won't happen inside a few decamillenia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

Sorry Mortukai but this is one female who knows when to give up.....you have a biased outlook which can't be altered. YOU cannot carry a baby so you seem to resent the fact that a woman can. Ergo it is YOUR right to demand something that can't be changed i.e.that a woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit. It doesn't matter how much you want to bitch about what she may/may not do....at the end of the day, she CAN make her own choice about what she wants to do, and will do so.

 

I'm not going to argue with you about your point of view.....you're perfectly within your rights to have it but perhaps you should stop trying to ram it down other people's throats! You sound very arrogant about yourself, your sexual prowess and your Godgiven right to order lesser beings (women in this case) to do your bidding!

 

Sorry to say this but you sound exactly like my ex husband..who was a weak man who liked to act tough...he wanted a family but not the work involved with a baby..which is why he left his daughter and me for a woman whose child was already 4 years old...no nappies, no breast feeding, no lack of sex for 6 weeks afterwards ...just a readymade family with a woman whose husband used to abuse her....so she was already ripe for his emotional abuse...however he wasn't prepared to totally dump his own daughter....he had plans for her! He took her virginity at age of 6 or 7 because he'd made her and she was his to abuse, but it was Daddy's way to show how much he loved her that he did these things to her! Don't tell anyone cos it's our little secret....I suppose you'd think that would be his right too?

 

I sometimes wonder if I'd have been better off aborting her.....but I was only just starting to realise what a jerk he was when she was conceived (because HE didn't want to wear a condom but he wanted sex): if I'd only learnt quicker, maybe she wouldn't have suffered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

Sorry Mortukai but this is one female who knows when to give up.....you have a biased outlook which can't be altered. YOU cannot carry a baby so you seem to resent the fact that a woman can. Ergo it is YOUR right to demand something that can't be changed i.e.that a woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit. It doesn't matter how much you want to bitch about what she may/may not do....at the end of the day, she CAN make her own choice about what she wants to do, and will do so.

Riddle me this: If a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body, even when that means affecting the life of another being (her baby), does a man have that same right? So, for instance, can I do whatever I want with my body, even when that means affecting the life of another being? So, if I decide to, say, move my arm in a vertical pounding motion, while I happen to be holding a knife, and someone else just happens to be in the path of the motion of my arm, can I say "It's my body, I can do what I want with it, you just happen to be an unfortunate casualty of my right to do as I wish with my body"?

 

Or do only women have that right?

 

A developing human is no longer a part of a woman's body, any more than a parasitic leech would be. It contains different genetic material, and grows largely independantly of the woman (besides its umbilical cord sucking nutrients from her body, much as a mosquito would, but babies can be raised by artificial means, demonstrating their independant life).

 

Oh, and it's pretty funny for you to claim that I have a biased outlook which can't be altered. I haven't seen any evidence of your outlook changing, and I've certainly seen plenty of evidence of bias. Oops, does that make you a hypocrit? Yes, I'm biased, so are you, and so is everyone who has an opinion.

 

Woah, what an epiphany. Let's eat hash cookies and contemplate that for a few hours, man.

 

 

I'm not going to argue with you about your point of view.....you're perfectly within your rights to have it but perhaps you should stop trying to ram it down other people's throats! You sound very arrogant about yourself, your sexual prowess and your Godgiven right to order lesser beings (women in this case) to do your bidding!

It's impossible for me to ram my opinion down people's throats. Otherwise, you'd share my opinion right now. Also, last time I checked, this was a Debates and Discussions forum. What a freaking coincidence then, that I'd be engaging in a debate, by discussing my opinion and debating it with other people's opinions, in an online forum with such a name! It's uncanny!!!11!!!!1111

 

 

Sorry to say this but you sound exactly like my ex husband..who was a weak man who liked to act tough...he wanted a family but not the work involved with a baby..which is why he left his daughter and me for a woman whose child was already 4 years old...no nappies, no breast feeding, no lack of sex for 6 weeks afterwards ...just a readymade family with a woman whose husband used to abuse her....so she was already ripe for his emotional abuse...however he wasn't prepared to totally dump his own daughter....he had plans for her! He took her virginity at age of 6 or 7 because he'd made her and she was his to abuse, but it was Daddy's way to show how much he loved her that he did these things to her! Don't tell anyone cos it's our little secret....I suppose you'd think that would be his right too?

Don't fvck with me lady. I had a whole response typed out before I realised that it would get me banned. Not because it was needlessly calumnious, but because it was much too personal and acrimonious. But I'm saving it because it was exceptionally well crafted vitriol, and I do love an ignominious reproach.

 

Suffice to say I'm far from your ex. You could never win a man like me.

 

I'm not arrogant, I'm confident and honest. That only seems like arrogance because I'm so damn good.

 

(note to the slow: That^ was humor.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerbera'sMum

Suffice to say I'm far from your ex. You could never win a man like me.

I'm not arrogant, I'm confident and honest. That only seems like arrogance because I'm so damn good.

(note to the slow: That^ was humor.)

 

Suffice to say that you're not the man of my dreams so I wouldn't want to win you!! I think you're too young for me..and far too full of yourself!

 

Me...well on a good day I'd probably rate 0 to you but my partner wouldn't be so crass as to put a number on my worth ..unless it was priceless!!! ( that's a joke..hey I'm like mastercard!!)

 

He and I know my worth and that's what counts!

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.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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