Is it in fact against your will? Under "normal" situations, you chose to have sex, which is known to be the leading cause of pregnancy(Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
). One could argue that you implicitly agree to raise any progency that results from that sex. People are generally expected to be responsible for results from other actions that they engage in willfully.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
Bad argument. People are genetically, strongly compelled to have sex. It is not in our nature to rationalize it. There is no point in saying this. It's just not how it is.Is it in fact against your will? Under "normal" situations, you chose to have sex, which is known to be the leading cause of pregnancy(
However, that does not dictate that we will have sex at every opportunity, much less dictate that we will do so completely unprotected. I'll admit it's not necessarily a good argument, but it does exist.Bad argument. People are genetically, strongly compelled to have sex. It is not in our nature to rationalize it. There is no point in saying this. It's just not how it is.Is it in fact against your will? Under "normal" situations, you chose to have sex, which is known to be the leading cause of pregnancy(:D). One could argue that you implicitly agree to raise any progency that results from that sex. People are generally expected to be responsible for results from other actions that they engage in willfully.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
Hmm im Pro-choice.
I like the germans way of doing it, you can abort it early. Aborting an almost formed child, well i can see the argument of that being wrong. Every time i ejaculate, millions of sperm just die. If im masturbating im not even giving them a possiblility of life so depending on how you look at it, is this murder?
When i walk out of my front door and step on 50 ants to my car, i murder them also. Now i personally do not consider humans to be any better than animals / insects so i just have to live with these facts.
I can definately see and understand both points of view. This is mine. I can imagine if i was a woman and became accidently pregnant its a massive desicion. A child is a life long burden(or blessing).
Millions of people die every day and as discojoe advised earlier, most people dont give it a second thought. Think about the people dying in Israel at the moment, it saddens you for a moment then you just go back to living. You dont give it any more thought than the ants that i step on.
That being said i think a great deal of councilling should be given to show the mothers what they will go through if they abort. Then they can decide.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
hey guys here's my opinion
lol
Well, then you're easy to embarassYOU MAKE A LAUGHABLY IRRELEVANT AND OVERLY COMPLEX ARGUMENT THAT MISSES THE POINT ENTIRELY AND WAS EMBARASSING TO READ.YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THAT ONLY THE ANTI-CHOICE POSITION REQUIRES FURTHER COERCION FOR IT TO BE REALIZED, WHEREAS THE PRO-CHOICE ONE STILL GIVES THE FREEDOM TO THE ANTI-CHOICERS TO GET AN ABORTION AND/OR TO TRY TO ENFORCE ANTIABORTIONIST LAWS.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
"YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THAT ONLY THE ANTI-CHOICE POSITION REQUIRES FURTHER COERCION FOR IT TO BE REALIZED, WHEREAS THE PRO-CHOICE ONE STILL GIVES THE FREEDOM TO THE ANTI-CHOICERS TO GET AN ABORTION AND/OR TO TRY TO ENFORCE ANTIABORTIONIST LAWS."
agreed
lol
Lol. What a sociopathic calculating attitude"Oh yes I have killed hundreds of mosquitos because they make such an annoying noice and prevent me from falling asleep. This certainly gives me the right to kill my annoying and loud neighbours since they are definately not any worthy than mosquitos".
If you use logic in a non-holistic way to define your ethics then this is what will happen. I bet every damn looney shooting or blowing people up have used a logic similar to this.
It seems like logic can be used to promote any kind of opinion or world view. Even completely opposing ones. I think I like democracy more now. Everybody uses their own method to define right and wrong and then we vote and see which interpretation wins and live with the consequences. It is not perfect but it is better than other possibilities. And I guess the fighting will go on forever because there are people who will not submit to the will of the majority and start to rebel.
Somehow I can hear the war drum beating. Humankind will never arrive to a common understanding of values via a peaceful process. The war is always going to be with us. And as weapons get more dangerous so do wars. Blah
some questions..
So,
1. If a guy wants his mate to have an abortion, and she refuses, should he still have to pay child support?
2. Should a man have the ability to force or stop an abortion?
3. If abortion is legal, do you think that a person who has murdered a woman with a fetus under <legal threshold for abortion here> should be guilty of one or two murders?
4. Would you be willing to pay increased taxes to support all the children alive because abortion is outlawed (public school, adoption/foster care subsidies, etc.)?
5. Are you willing to pay the extra taxes to medically support those who cannot afford to deliver on their own?
6. Are you willing to pay the extra taxes to medically support those who cannot have an abortion on their own?
7. When does a cell or collection of cells become a life in its own right? For what reason(s)?
8. When should a cell or collection of cells become a legal person in its own right? For what reason(s)?
9. If you are pro-life EXCEPT (for this question) in the case of rape: what makes that fetus special?
10. If you are pro-life EXCEPT (for this question) in the case of incest: what makes that fetus special?
11. A woman has her tubes tied (not burned - she wants children, but not yet) and is on the pill. The guy uses a condom. She gets pregnant (this can happen) - should she be allowed to abort?
12. (Not directly related, but..) If a woman is pregnant, and engages in activities possibly harmful to the fetus (eg, drinking, smoking, drugs), Can her behavior be restricted by the state (eg, by locking her up in a maternity ward)?
INTp
............
Re: some questions..
I think this are very good questions! I am curious as to how people will attempt to answer them.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Re: some questions..
1. If a guy wants his mate to have an abortion, and she refuses, should he still have to pay child support?
Yes, he engaged in sexual intercourse with full knowledge of the possibility of a child. In my opinion he should be held more responsible than the woman.
2. Should a man have the ability to force or stop an abortion?
He should certainly have a say in it, its just as much his child as the woman's child.
3. If abortion is legal, do you think that a person who has murdered a woman with a fetus under <legal threshold for abortion here> should be guilty of one or two murders?
Two.
4. Would you be willing to pay increased taxes to support all the children alive because abortion is outlawed (public school, adoption/foster care subsidies, etc.)?
I would give up anything to see these children live.
5. Are you willing to pay the extra taxes to medically support those who cannot afford to deliver on their own?
See above.
6. Are you willing to pay the extra taxes to medically support those who cannot have an abortion on their own?
See above
7. When does a cell or collection of cells become a life in its own right? For what reason(s)?
I cant answer this without bringing all kinds of religion in
8. When should a cell or collection of cells become a legal person in its own right? For what reason(s)?
See 7.
9. If you are pro-life EXCEPT (for this question) in the case of rape: what makes that fetus special?
Pregnancy due to rape is incredibly rare due to the fact that women have a defense mechanism that chimes in if they feel in danger and so on.
10. If you are pro-life EXCEPT (for this question) in the case of incest: what makes that fetus special?
Dont even kno whow to answer that.
11. A woman has her tubes tied (not burned - she wants children, but not yet) and is on the pill. The guy uses a condom. She gets pregnant (this can happen) - should she be allowed to abort?
I dont think so, she should know that there is always a risk unless there is no sexual intercourse involved.
12. (Not directly related, but..) If a woman is pregnant, and engages in activities possibly harmful to the fetus (eg, drinking, smoking, drugs), Can her behavior be restricted by the state (eg, by locking her up in a maternity ward)?
Should a woman be restricted for beating her children? Abusing them?
Re: some questions..
I'm not sure how these questions answer the original question.
Are you saying that you feel a woman who may drink, may smoke, may do drugs should be locked up in a maternity ward to prevent them from harming the fetus?
What about those who were alcholics, drug users or smokers prior to conception? Aren't there studies that talk about the effects of these kinds of things that negatively affect a fetus even if the mother stops upon discovering conception?
And what about mothers who are on legal drugs for say..mental/mood disorders. Should the woman be forced to stop taking these drugs and risk going off the deep end or becoming suicidal/psychotic/whatever just so that the fetus may have a chance at survival without physical deformity? What about the effects of the hormonal changes that occur and how that affects the child's brain/body/neural developments?
I guess what i'm saying is..that once you start forcing mothers into maternity wards to help protect the fetus, you open things up to all sorts of female imprisonments.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Re: some questions..
No, I dont think that women should be restricted for these things, my intent was just to throw out something that could be said for that particular question. In my opinion people should be mature enough to know not to conceive if they're alcoholic or engaged in other activities that would endanger a pregnancy. Too bad they're not.I'm not sure how these questions answer the original question.
Are you saying that you feel a woman who may drink, may smoke, may do drugs should be locked up in a maternity ward to prevent them from harming the fetus?
What about those who were alcholics, drug users or smokers prior to conception? Aren't there studies that talk about the effects of these kinds of things that negatively affect a fetus even if the mother stops upon discovering conception?
And what about mothers who are on legal drugs for say..mental/mood disorders. Should the woman be forced to stop taking these drugs and risk going off the deep end or becoming suicidal/psychotic/whatever just so that the fetus may have a chance at survival without physical deformity? What about the effects of the hormonal changes that occur and how that affects the child's brain/body/neural developments?
I guess what i'm saying is..that once you start forcing mothers into maternity wards to help protect the fetus, you open things up to all sorts of female imprisonments.
Re: some questions..
..........
Re: some questions..
I'm completley pro life, that question is completley situational, my opinions are basically that the abortion shouldnt happen simply. But a realtionship and the effects of a sexual relationship are put on two people, not just one. While women definitley have it harder in these situations, I dont see it logical to allow one person to make the decision of something it took 2 people to create.Zeia, I cannot resist so I've a question for you. You said that you are completely pro-life so how do you integrate that belief with your opinion above?
......
Re: some questions..
No. Men should be able to back out of child support at any time, and the government shouldn't have any say in this. This will cause more poverty, which is a good thing. Mothers and little kids feeling sorry for themselves should not be a reason to force men to do something not in their interest. The fact that men can run out at any time should force women to be more careful about sleeping around, which would result in less random babies.
No. Woman's body. Don't fuck 'em if you don't know what the outcome will be.2. Should a man have the ability to force or stop an abortion?
Yes. The option to terminate the fetus should be the choice of the parent(s). Anyone outside termination should be considered murder.3. If abortion is legal, do you think that a person who has murdered a woman with a fetus under <legal threshold for abortion here> should be guilty of one or two murders?
Fuck no. Taxes are bullshit in the first place. Why not use the billions of wasted tax dollars that are already being paid instead?4. Would you be willing to pay increased taxes to support all the children alive because abortion is outlawed (public school, adoption/foster care subsidies, etc.)?
No.5. Are you willing to pay the extra taxes to medically support those who cannot afford to deliver on their own?
No. There is no reason to increase taxes because Jessica and Washanta got knocked up.6. Are you willing to pay the extra taxes to medically support those who cannot have an abortion on their own?
Irrelevant.7. When does a cell or collection of cells become a life in its own right? For what reason(s)?
Sure. Who cares.11. A woman has her tubes tied (not burned - she wants children, but not yet) and is on the pill. The guy uses a condom. She gets pregnant (this can happen) - should she be allowed to abort?
Of course not. What nonsense. The ends do not justify the means, and strict pro-lifers who adopt this mentality seem oblivious to the fact that in history, the greatest evils are commited the best of intentions.12. (Not directly related, but..) If a woman is pregnant, and engages in activities possibly harmful to the fetus (eg, drinking, smoking, drugs), Can her behavior be restricted by the state (eg, by locking her up in a maternity ward)?
Re: some questions..
Ok...A quick take without much analysis...sue me for contradictions
Yes. He made a choice and took a risk. If the woman somehow made this happen without the guy knowing e.g. drugged him and then had sex with him then this would be more complicated. Perhaps the "sperm bank rules" could be applied then.
Force -> never. Stop -> if the abortion was illegal.
If the fetus had reached a state of maturity where abortion was illegal then yes. If not then he would perhaps be guilty of one murder and one abortion performed using illegal procedure
Yeah. And even if abortion is legal here we still have that kind of infrastructure already in place.
Yeah. And already do
noI'm not sure if tax money pays for abortions here. I think not (yet).
When God puts the soul in them
Well I'm not familiar with law terms but some rights at the moment of fertilization then gradually more rights when the child gets older (especially at the moment of birth, at the moment it becomes adult, ...). This is a flexible subject. There are many right answers.
Umm...am I allowed to answer these 9. and 10.?Anyways rape is exceptional because both partners didn't choose to take a risk. One was forced. However the issue is complex. So fetus is not special but situation is so an exceptional rule could be formed.
No. She took precautions but she still took a risk even if only a very small one. The child shouldn't be made responsible for the consequences of a realized risk her mother and father took.
There are behavior which can be restricted if it was harmful to woman and/or fetus. E.g. trying to commit suicide or trying to poison the fetus. I wouldn't very easily start restricting things which are very common and accepted social behavior. This would be another risk the mother takes and is responsible for the possible consequences. Only if the fetus dies and it can be proven that the mother knowingly engaged in extremely risky behavior some punishment could be applied. Mostly I guess in cases of clearly diagnosed mental illness the behavior could be restricted. But this would more or less hold true even if the person was not pregnant.
Ok. I tried to be fast
Re: some questions..
.
doesn't this have implications on a lot of other issues? why should taxes be mandated for example? or why should people be restricted from purchasing assault weapons? etc. also the implication of the failure of nuclear non-proliferation would be a consequence as well as other fiat type situations (the value of <insert object here> [eg. money, reality, etc.])
Re: some questions..
I really dislike the "responsibility" argument for the following reasons. Being *able to be* responsible is not an inherent trait we all share equally, it is something that we learn along the way.
Adequate sex education is a matter of parental counseling as well as schooling and using adequate contraception is also a matter of access. Not everyone receives the same quality sex education (hell, students in Texas received NONE) and/or have access to contraception for a variety of reasons)
One example from statistics:
Another article suggesting that poverty is a factor:According to the investigators, higher abortion rates and ratios among black women (in 1994) may be attributable to socioeconomic differences, increases in the number of unintended pregnancies and differential access to services. (O'Connor, M.L.. Family Planning Perspectives, Mar/Apr98, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p101, 2p; (AN 797795))
And this is interesting also:It is even more difficult to explain the increased pregnancy rate, but factors such as a rising proportion of teenagers living in poverty [...] Also, the effectiveness of contraceptive use may have declined if there was a shift from pill to condom use in response to messages on how to prevent infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).(which even indicates a heightened level of responsibility, ironically enough).
Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State, 1992. By: Henshaw, Stanley K.,. Family Planning Perspectives, May/Jun97, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p115-122, 8p, 5 charts; (AN 9706230805)
Whether or not abortions are more frequent among low-income women seems to depend on ethnicity, but I would have to read more on that and don't have the time currently.Contraceptive failure is a key reason many US women seek abortions, says a survey released Aug 8 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The survey of 10 000 abortion patients in 1994-95 found that 57.5% of women who had abortions were using contraception during the month in which they became pregnant, up from 51.3% who answered a similar survey conducted in the late 1980s.(US abortion survey produces surprise statistics. By: Rovner, Julie. Lancet, 08/17/96, Vol. 348 Issue 9025, p469, 1/3p; (AN 9608267521))
I think it is a bit too simple to expect the same degree of responsibility from all women when their access to resources, their upbringing, their schooling and so many other factors differ significantly from your own.
Some of us are just better equipped to be responsible. After all, many women are apparently using contraceptives and are thus acting responsible. And expecting women to abstain from sex entirely as long as they cannot care for a baby just seems like asking a bit too much.
In addition, I am really curious about those of you in favor of making abortion illegal would realistically go about it. I still claim that it is a dangerous thing to do because I am sure many desperate women would claim that they have been raped. I cannot help but feel that many of you overlook just how traumatic an unwanted pregnancy can be and to what extent your attempt at robbing women of agency in this regard disempowers them. I find the implications of illegalizing abortions extremely frightening, both in that legislature takes control over a very personal part of a woman's life and in that the whole burden is placed on the woman.
Diana - most women who find themselves pregnant and unable to care for a child and therefore consider abortion are very young. It doesn't make sense to tell a woman because she can't handle being a mom at 17 that she should have a hysterectomy. Unless you're looking to punish women instead of solve a problem.
And I'm horrified by the idea that anyone thinks women should be compelled to continue a pregnancy that occured due to rape. What if a 12-year-old is raped by her father and gets pregnant? Are there any situations where you would think abortion was ok?
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I'm against all that you mention. Taxes, purchase of assault weapons etc...doesn't this have implications on a lot of other issues? why should taxes be mandated for example? or why should people be restricted from purchasing assault weapons? etc. also the implication of the failure of nuclear non-proliferation would be a consequence as well as other fiat type situations (the value of <insert object here> [eg. money, reality, etc.])
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
every sperm is sacred (monty python)
i'm not sure you completely understood what i said. it would be a null of any sort of preventative action. for example trying to curb crime via the use of police, anti-pollution measures such as the kyoto protocol, and enforcement of public education
this is why ejaculating into anything that is not a human vagina is essentially no different than abortion. the latter is simply a more elaborate form of prevention. at least the catholics realize this and are logically consistent in their beliefs.
Every forum has an abortion debate. And on every forum, it's not constructive. I'm quite pro-choice and always will be.
You cannot really enforce "life" on other people.
I don't get how The Strict Catholics are so very pro life,
but don't hesitate when it comes to killing in the name of God.
"wtf"
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Abortion = Murder (unless there is a valid reason, such as the mother's life being in danger)
Abortion is the Holocaust of Capitalism.
abortion is the holocaust of capitalism now?
so does this mean capitalism is no longer a holocaust in and of itself?
This is one of those things that you do not discuss over dinner (along with the religion thread). People have already picked sides and no amount of logic or arguing is going to convince someone from the "other side" that "you're side" is right.
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
people's opinions do not result from logic. if you change their personal culture (the training they have recieved in how to respond to a particular thing) then you change their beliefs. this is how cultists operate. ironically it is how most things operate behind the scenes, including logic. logic is just a set of rules by which a set of premises lead to a conclusion. the premises and conclusions can be arbitrary and stupid such as "if ducks fly past the moon at midnight then marble equals superconcavity." logic is a by-product, a resultant of the things which have been experienced as typical by the subject.
Posting statements in giant, bold letters does not make you seem cultured or well-educated. It makes you seem like a pompous jackass.
every sperm is sacred from monty python's The Meaning of Life
longer version that includes the protestant perpective. sort of choppy in some places
Posting statements in giant, bold letters does not make you seem cultured or well-educated. It makes you seem like a pompous jackass.
Aww, dont quote him. It makes his words visible on my screen =p
Perhaps you should pay more attention to content rather than form.
your content has a similar effect as does your formatting.
So content is not more important to you than form?
you evidently did not read what i said. go read it again.
I did read what you said, but you still haven't answered my question, which of course you can ignore if you wish.
Reply With Quote
