Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:33 am

Feud wrote: Further, an abortion can be a very traumatic event.


Which is why one shouldn't assume that women will have an abortion lightly...

This isn't a case of discrimination in the negative sense, because it's discrimination on the basis of a valid factor - whether or not they are a woman and as such bearing the child. 'Discrimination' doesn't always have to be a bad thing - e.g. you would probably make a terrible circus midget.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!
Ultimate Uplink Guide
Latest Patch
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:17 am

Wow, :shock:

I started a topic that got wendryn to join up and post! Only one thing I want to say about that post though, I am sorry that you would view a human life developing as a parasite. Perhaps nothing negative was meant by that term and I'm inferring a negative connotation.

In other news, I wholeheartedly disagree with you Feud on what is and is not "Ice Cream" for this discussion. An ice cream sandwich or Choco Taco may contain ice cream, but they should be in the category of "Ice Cream Treat" or "Frozen Treat". A cone is different because it is usually hand dipped scoops into a container that happens to be edible. Any cone that comes pre-packaged is really just another "Frozen Treat".

Real ice cream, for the sake of this thread is hand scooped. Also, vanilla is ok, but only because you can add chocolate to it. And for those that don't know, put some chocolate in first, then vanilla, then moderately top the ice cream with more chocolate. You get a more even distribution and better all around enjoyment. :wink:

Edit: Where are my manners? Welcome wendryn!
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:25 am

First of all, welcome to the forums! Second, due to the nature of where you have chosen to bring this argument, I'm going to try to deal with the topic very delicately, so if I err on the side of subtlety then so be it. If I offend, then I sincerely apologize, I did not mean to do so.

wendryn wrote:Let's start with the first bit. This is not granting rights based solely on gender. This is basing rights on the fact that the woman is *carrying the child*. You carry a child, you run the risk of dying because of it, you are absolutely welcome to decide what happens to your body. I'm carrying the child, I run the risk of dying (yes, actually, I do, with O- blood, so don't blast that bit), I can say whether or not I'm going to carry the child. The father gets input, as far as I'm concerned, but the father of the fetus does not get to dictate whether or not I will risk my life so he can have a baby.


If the mother is in direct danger, then she should be able to take what steps necessary to save her life. But, just the fact that pregnancy is dangerous is not reason in and of itself. Driving is dangerous, flying is dangerous, lot's of things might happen. A competent, licensed medical authority should first feel that there is a grave and pressing threat that if allowed to come to term that the mother will likely die before the rights of the father are terminated.

wendryn wrote:You think the government has the right to make people take responsibility for their actions? That's nice. That's why we have the legal system in place. I'm not sure which individual you think is encroaching on the others, though - the woman encroaching on the "right to life" of the fetus or the woman encroaching on the right of the man to have a child carry on his bloodline? Or, perhaps, the woman encroaching on the right of the man to decide he doesn't feel like wearing a condom? Somehow, however, giving a man the right to force a woman to carry a fetus is not encroaching on her rights? Sounds rather lopsided from my point of view. Oh, wait, I'm female. I'm supposed to allow a man to have *as much say* over what happens to my body as I do.


Personally,y I do think abortion infringes on the right to life of the fetus. But, since that is not the topic of this discussion, I'll move on.

Babies don't just show up. Unless the woman is raped (for which I am not arguing the father's right) she is just as responsible for what happens in the bedroom as the male. Birth control isn't 100% effective, and that is a risk that both parties take should they decide to use it. If a man decides not to use any, then the woman has the right not to be with him.

A couple having a relationship together assumes the risk that a pregnancy might happen. It is a joint action that has consequences that I feel neither party has a right to terminate prematurely without the consent of the other. If the man or woman does not want a child, then they should not be having such relations. If one does wish to face the consequences, the other should have to deal with them as well since they were a willing partner in the initial creation.

wendryn wrote:If I choose to take the morning after pill, if I choose to terminate a pregnancy, I am taking responsibility for my actions. In my opinion, my responsibility is not just to carry the fetus to term, but also to be able and willing to raise the child in a reasonable, stable household. I could not have done that in the past. I have not had an abortion, but, quite honestly, if I had become pregnant at any time since I was 19 years old (I'm 32 now) I would have considered it a responsible choice to terminate a fetus. You may throw in adoption, but I could not have held the jobs I did during those times while I was pregnant. It would have done me damage to carry a child to term, more than I would have been damaged from deciding, responsibly, to terminate a pregnancy.


First, despite my personal feelings on the matter, I am not arguing against the option, just the mother's unilateral decision making in it. Hospital bills and the cost of caring for the mother fall to the father. Of course, if he has run off then the mother should not be restrained from taking what actions she may since he has abdicated his responsibilities. His rights are also based upon responsibilities.

On a personal note, if a person cannot or is unwilling to deal with the potential consequences of their actions, they should abstain from such actions to begin with. Also, I am aware of a number of adoption agencies that specialize in single mother situations, who will step in and provide for the mother's needs should a situation like you described happen. Other answers do exist.

wendryn wrote:The father can give up legal rights to his offspring before it is born. The mother can't. He can walk away; she can't. This is infringing on the mother's right to not have a parasite for 9 months that completely screws with her body. The father doesn't have rights until the fetus is actually born for the simple reason that you can't really detach the fetus from the mother. The fetus is, for those 9 months, a part of the mother's body. If you extend your argument, the father should be able to decide what the mother eats, how she exercises, and everything about the pregnancy because it is his kid, too. That sounds a lot like slavery to me, but you are headed that way. His legal rights start when the mother is no longer required for the survival of the fetus. He doesn't have equal protection because, whatever your stand on when life starts, what happens to the mother happens to the fetus and vice versa, and the father can stand back and watch. He has no physical connection to the fetus. The mother does. Deal with it. Again, once you can carry the fetus, you can do what you damn well please, but until then women should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.


Even if a father walks away, years later he can be held legally responsible for the child's well being. But, as I said earlier, abdication of responsibilities should result in revoking of the associated rights.

As for "deciding things" for the mother, my argument is that they should have equal say in things. As for having "no physical connection to the fetus", he may not be directly connected, as a mother, but a father can have a profound connection to an unborn child. That relationship can affect his mental, emotional, and physical health. Such a connection, since it affects the man's health and well being, is very much a physical connection.

wendryn wrote:Anguish I get. Pain, though? What, you're going to beat your head against a wall? You don't have to deal with pain. It isn't your body. Also, if the father is allowed to reject a termination, wouldn't it follow that he should also be able to force one? Is that acceptable in your world? You are talking about forcing a woman to do something that seriously affects her health, and your argument for the other side is that it is going to hurt your feelings if you don't have a say in the result of your sperm. Emotional anguish I'll give you - it is a hard decision. The person making the decision should be the person most affected, and that is not the man. Won't be, either, barring leaps in science.


Yes, pain. I know many couples who have faced the tragedy of a miscarriage, and the husband deals with very real pain. A loss of a child brings pain to the parents, neither of whom is attached to the child in a literal physical way. An unwanted abortion can cause the same pain to the father.

As for the person most affected, I raised the example of a father who would be willing to assume full responsibility for a child after it is born. 18 years vs. 9 months. Granted, pregnancies are risky by nature, but so are abortions. Unless a competent doctor feels the mothers life is in immediate peril, an abortion is just trading one risk for another.

Further, I am not talking about forcing a woman to do anything beyond making an equal decision with the male. If she did not want her life put at risk, she should not have put it at risk in the first place. Otherwise, whether the baby is allowed to live or is terminated, there is a risk involved, and by choosing to take a chance she should not be allowed to have her selfishness out way a man's right to his child.

wendryn wrote:The important part is that the fetus is inside the woman, not inside the man, and he is not dealing with anything other than emotional bits. The woman is rather more intimately involved. If the fetus dies inside the woman (yes, it happens, it happened to a friend) it can eventually kill the woman. A fetus dies inside the woman, the man goes on, maybe feeling sad. Woman can die. Man is depressed. Major difference there.


I don't deny that mothers have a unique bond with their children, or that they go through a situation while pregnant that a man cannot full understand. Again, as I have pointed out in this thread and others (which you either ignored intentionally, or for the sake of your argument) when a woman's life is in immediate danger then she should have the final say.

Saying that the "man goes on, maybe feeling sad" is a bit of an understatement. Just for the sake of argument, since you are going to use argument's such as "woman can die", let's explore the depression you mentioned. Depression can put an individual in a state of mind where rational thinking ceases to exist. They can become dangerous to themselves and others, just as a fetus can lead to death in a woman, depression can result in an individual killing themselves, an action they would not have taken if they were in their proper state of mind.

Often, people speak of the "other victims" of a tragedy. Those who were not there, but feel the lasting repercussions of it. Such a suicide could be viewed as a consequence of that death. So by saying a woman "could" die, one must also realize that equally severe consequences may come to the father, but by a different means.

wendryn wrote:The father can give up legal rights to a child, which you seem to be missing. People do it pretty regularly. Parents who want to give up their child for adoption relinquish parental rights, and the man can do that by himself at any time. Fathers should have a right to the child. Fathers should not, ever, have a right to a fetus unless he is carrying the thing.


Father's can give up those rights, but only when the state takes them away or when someone else (such as an adoption agency) agrees to assume them. He can run, at which point he is a criminal just as any other criminal, but he cannot simply "give them up".

Unless, as was suggested, a man never has any responsibilities (legal, financial, or otherwise) to any children he should father, he should have an equal say in things.

That being said:

I would again point out that I disagree with abortion except as a result of rape, or when the mother faces an immediate danger as diagnosed by a combatant medical authority. I feel that if a couple does not want children, or is unwilling to accept the potential consequences of their actions, they should abstain until they feel otherwise.
Last edited by Feud on Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:28 am

xander wrote:
You want to change the law to make abortion illegal. I want to change the law to remove the man from the picture. If you are going to argue that I cannot push for my change to the legal system, then my only counter-argument is that abortion is legal, and that my argument is "based upon the current system."

xander


Fair enough. When I wrote my replies you had not yet written such (or I had misunderstood you), and so I was unaware of that portion of your argument.
AceRimmer wrote:In other news, I wholeheartedly disagree with you Feud on what is and is not "Ice Cream" for this discussion. An ice cream sandwich or Choco Taco may contain ice cream, but they should be in the category of "Ice Cream Treat" or "Frozen Treat". A cone is different because it is usually hand dipped scoops into a container that happens to be edible. Any cone that comes pre-packaged is really just another "Frozen Treat".

Real ice cream, for the sake of this thread is hand scooped. Also, vanilla is ok, but only because you can add chocolate to it. And for those that don't know, put some chocolate in first, then vanilla, then moderately top the ice cream with more chocolate. You get a more even distribution and better all around enjoyment. Wink


Your blind prejudice against soft serve and Drumsticks disgusts me. :shock:
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:51 am

Feud wrote:If the mother is in direct danger, then she should be able to take what steps necessary to save her life. But, just the fact that pregnancy is dangerous is not reason in and of itself. Driving is dangerous, flying is dangerous, lot's of things might happen. A competent, licensed medical authority should first feel that there is a grave and pressing threat that if allowed to come to term that the mother will likely die before the rights of the father are terminated.

Who determines that the mother's life is in danger?

Feud wrote:A couple having a relationship together assumes the risk that a pregnancy might happen. It is a joint action that has consequences that I feel neither party has a right to terminate prematurely without the consent of the other. If the man or woman does not want a child, then they should not be having such relations. If one does wish to face the consequences, the other should have to deal with them as well since they were a willing partner in the initial creation.

Wendryn and I are married. Are you suggesting that Wendryn and I abstain because we do not want to have a child right now? According to nearly every culture in the world, Wendryn and I have sexual rights to each other because we are married. That would include Mormonism. So, given that we are sanctioned for sexual relations, are you suggesting that if Wendryn became pregnant right now, she should not be allowed to terminate, as we are not quite ready to raise a child yet?

I am offended.

xander
User avatar
wendryn
level1
level1
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:14 am

Postby wendryn » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:54 am

Ace Rimmer wrote:I am sorry that you would view a human life developing as a parasite. Perhaps nothing negative was meant by that term and I'm inferring a negative connotation.


If the woman does not want the child, it tends to be viewed as a parasite. I wouldn't consider a fetus to be a parasite, but then, I am not in a position to be forced to have a child I don't want. There is a negative connotation and it was quite consciously used - if it's forced, if it isn't wanted, if it puts the mother in an untenable situation, then I think parasite is a reasonable term for a fetus. I've known a lot of women who ended up pregnant without wanting a child (working in an inner city will expose you to that) and "parasite" was the general feeling. Even in jokes it shows up, though - the Jewish mother jokes that include "You sucked the lifeblood from my body for nine months, and you can't even change a light bulb" - rather parasitic, don't you think?

Anyway, the word was used because of my history and my knowledge of more than just the WASP side of life.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Edit: Where are my manners? Welcome wendryn!


Thank you! :)
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:14 am

Feud wrote:Personally,y I do think abortion infringes on the right to life of the fetus.

In the same way abstinence infringes on the right to life of ova and sperm?

Feud wrote:Saying that the "man goes on, maybe feeling sad" is a bit of an understatement. Just for the sake of argument, since you are going to use argument's such as "woman can die", let's explore the depression you mentioned. Depression can put an individual in a state of mind where rational thinking ceases to exist. They can become dangerous to themselves and others, just as a fetus can lead to death in a woman, depression can result in an individual killing themselves, an action they would not have taken if they were in their proper state of mind.


Are you suggesting this scenario would not occur if the father had no legal responsibilities?
You state that a couple which decides to have sex accept that their own rights do not trump those of the fetus. I would suggest in having sex a father accepts that his own rights do not trump the mother's.

Feud wrote:I feel that if a couple does not want children, or is unwilling to accept the potential consequences of their actions, they should abstain until they feel otherwise.


Evidently, then, either sex serves no purpose other than reproduction or it is impossible for people to responsibly decide not to have a child.
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:11 am

I was discussing the volatile nature of this topic with my girlfriend a moment ago, and she said something like:

Until a person has experienced the situation where abortion could potentially be a real option in their circumstance, noone is truly certified to comment.

Walk a mile in someone's shoes and all that ;)

Still, I don't pretend that this would be an end to all arguments, but I hope it could moderate the tone of the adamant (on both sides).
User avatar
wendryn
level1
level1
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:14 am

Postby wendryn » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:12 am

Feud wrote:First of all, welcome to the forums!


Thank you!

Feud wrote:Second, due to the nature of where you have chosen to bring this argument, I'm going to try to deal with the topic very delicately, so if I err on the side of subtlety then so be it. If I offend, then I sincerely apologize, I did not mean to do so.


I am not easily offended, so you need not worry about that. I do not intend to offend, either, but I would like you to consider a different point of view.

Feud wrote:If the mother is in direct danger, then she should be able to take what steps necessary to save her life. But, just the fact that pregnancy is dangerous is not reason in and of itself. Driving is dangerous, flying is dangerous, lot's of things might happen. A competent, licensed medical authority should first feel that there is a grave and pressing threat that if allowed to come to term that the mother will likely die before the rights of the father are terminated.


Driving and flying are both things I have choices about. If I choose not to fly because the danger is too much for me, you do not get to say that I *must* fly, do you? I am a reasonable adult. I should be able to decide if something is too dangerous for me at this point in my life, be it due to the pregnancy taking my ability to work and keep my house, causing massive depression, or causing actual physical danger. Each person's perceptions of danger are different. Why do you get to decide if a pregnancy is too dangerous for me? Why should I leave that to a medical professional who does not know (or, possibly, care, if I happen to be low-income) why I think the pregnancy is a danger to me? Sounds to me like you are implying that I am not able to perceive whether or not I am in danger. I think that is my decision. I know what is going on, and I can make decisions based on that which someone from the outside cannot. You don't get to tell me what danger is; I'm smart enough to figure that out myself.

Feud wrote:Babies don't just show up....Birth control isn't 100% effective, and that is a risk that both parties take should they decide to use it. If a man decides not to use any, then the woman has the right not to be with him.


You may live in a place where both parents are expected to be equally responsible for birth control. That isn't the case in many places. I grew up in a lower class neighborhood in the inner city. Life is not the same there as it is where you seem to be coming from. The woman is responsible for birth control because the man can't be bothered. She is then responsible for the child. Where do you think welfare moms come from? They are women who can't afford birth control or haven't been educated about it, do not have health care (do you have any idea how much BC pills cost, by the way, if you don't have insurance?), and have many fewer choices than you do. You think this is an easy decision because you have had, I would bet, always had access to choices in this matter. You think men automatically support their children once they are born? I guess that's why so many people have their wages garnished due to lack of paying child support. Women get left with children. That's pretty consistent throughout the world, especially in lower class areas. This fetus is going to be a part of the woman's life and she will be responsible for the raising of it. I think what you aren't seeing here is that you are assuming men stick around to help raise kids, and that is often not the case. This needs to be a woman's decision because she is left with the results. Men can leave at any point. Women can't leave until after they give birth. This is the base of the discussion, and the piece you are not accepting.

Feud wrote:If the man or woman does not want a child, then they should not be having such relations.


I do everything I can to avoid pregnancy. The pill is 99% effective. I think that's good enough odds. I know I am not quite ready to have a child, for many reasons, and I resent the idea that I should stay a virgin until I am ready to have a child. Sex is a pretty basic desire, if you hadn't noticed, and people will have relations, as you so carefully put it. Teenagers are having sex as I write this. They don't want a child. Drunk people are having sex. All kinds of people are having sex, and procreation is not their main, um, thrust. It feels good. It has positive effects on mood. You want me to not have sex, ever, because I'm not ready to be pregnant? Also, we are back to this - I can have sex in a moment of weakness and end up knocked up. You can have sex in a moment of weakness and walk away. That's a really basic difference.

No sex until you are ready to have a kid is rather naive, I think. Better living through chemistry is here. If it doesn't work, I have options that will make sure that when I am ready to have a child and support it, I will be the best parent possible. I will only have a child that is loved and wanted. I refuse to bring a child into this world if it is not loved and wanted. That's my idea of being responsible.

Feud wrote:Hospital bills and the cost of caring for the mother fall to the father.


*choke* I'm sorry, this is rude, but where, exactly, are you from? Father's responsibilities, according to the law of the land, begin at birth. They have no legal reason to pay for hospital bills. Moral reasons, sure, but legally he has no cost, and he doesn't have to care for the mother. Other than in upper class white enclaves, prenatal care is catch-as-catch-can and the woman's family provides most of the support. If the hospital bills for the birth are outrageous, she goes bankrupt. He doesn't.

Feud wrote:I am aware of a number of adoption agencies that specialize in single mother situations, who will step in and provide for the mother's needs should a situation like you described happen. Other answers do exist.


Adoption agencies don't pay for rent and food, don't make it easier to explain a break in employment, don't make it easier to find a job in a slow market. Especially if you are talking about little babies who are not white or who have disabilities, many of these services simply do not exist.

Feud wrote:As for "deciding things" for the mother, my argument is that they should have equal say in things....a father can have a profound connection to an unborn child. That relationship can affect his mental, emotional, and physical health.


Your equal say is that a man should be able to deny a woman a termination because he added sperm to the mix. That is not equal because his physical health and well-being is not nearly as wrapped up in the fetus as the mother's is. Your "physical connection" is an emotional connection. While I agree it can be important to the man, it is not, actually, a physical connection - it is a feeling. Fetus gets sick, woman gets sick. Fetus kicks, woman feels it. That is a physical connection, and very different from the emotional connection you are describing.

Feud wrote:Yes, pain. I know many couples who have faced the tragedy of a miscarriage, and the husband deals with very real pain....An unwanted abortion can cause the same pain to the father.


We're talking about different kinds of pain. I'm talking physical, intimate, bleeding and cramping kind of pain; you're back to saying that the man's emotional pain is just as bad as the woman's physical plus emotional pain. That's bullshit. Yes, he's hurt emotionally. I get it. It's only a piece of what the woman is dealing with, though, and you are trying to make them the same. They aren't. It's different.

Feud wrote:As for the person most affected, I raised the example of a father who would be willing to assume full responsibility for a child after it is born. 18 years vs. 9 months. Granted, pregnancies are risky by nature, but so are abortions. Unless a competent doctor feels the mothers life is in immediate peril, an abortion is just trading one risk for another.


I can't think of many men who would agree to take a newborn baby from the mother and agree to raise it on his own. Glad to hear that, according to you, there are a bunch of them out there completely willing to take on a child with no help. Funny, then, how many child support issues are due to fathers who decided it was too much work...

As to the risk of a termination, they are actually very low, especially early in the pregnancy. I think you may be confusing legal, fairly safe terminations with the back-alley coat hanger terminations that happen when terminating a pregnancy is not legal. Oh, and we're back to a competent physician deciding whether or not my life is in enough danger to terminate a pregnancy. I'm a big girl. That's my decision.


Feud wrote:Further, I am not talking about forcing a woman to do anything beyond making an equal decision with the male.


Equal decision:
Man: "No termination"
Woman: "Termination"
The way you are discussing this, the man's view would win because it is more equal, somehow. Thus, the woman would be forced to carry a fetus she does not want.

Feud wrote:Again, as I have pointed out in this thread and others (which you either ignored intentionally, or for the sake of your argument) when a woman's life is in immediate danger then she should have the final say.


I just started reading threads because you seemed so buried in your fine, middle or upper class world that you couldn't see what most of the world deals with. I understand that if I were dying you'd allow me to terminate. How kind of you. Other than that, though, other people get to decide what happens to my body? I don't think so.

Feud wrote:Saying that the "man goes on, maybe feeling sad" is a bit of an understatement.


Yes, it is an understatement. It is ridiculous for you to say, however, that the man's pain is equal. He may commit suicide, yes, that's his choice. Yes, depression sucks. He has a choice, he has access to drugs, he has all kinds of options. The mother ends up dead no matter what in this scenario, though, so I think perhaps it is not as much of an understatement as you think.

Feud wrote:I feel that if a couple does not want children, or is unwilling to accept the potential consequences of their actions, they should abstain until they feel otherwise.


Got it. No sex until a stable marriage is achieved. That's going to happen. Does this apply to men, too? Because I live in Reno, and with the number of titty bars and hookers in the general area (aimed at men) I'm kind of seeing a double standard here.

My basic stance is this:
Men can walk away from a pregnancy at any time. Lacking a paternity test, there is no definite knowledge of who the father is. There is never any question about who the mother is, though, since she shows up at the hospital, pregnant. She is responsible for her own well being before that of the fetus, as she will be unable to care for a fetus effectively if she cannot take care of herself. If, for whatever reason, she does not see herself as able to take care of the fetus or, in the future, the child, she should have the right to decide whether or not to carry to term.

Men can leave. Women can't. Until that changes, men should not have any say until the point at which both parents have an equal ability to walk away.

wendryn
Last edited by wendryn on Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:15 am

Xocrates wrote:
torq wrote:In my country there were periods when abortions were forbidden and periods when abortions were legal.
I can only say that many women died when abortions were forbidden because of illegal abortions.
Abortions is a side of human life. Even in Ancient Egypt there were abortions. So I don't think we'll prove anything in this discussion. All I think, abortions must not be outlawed and women willing to do it should receive proper medical treatment. Their lives and health are much more important than any men's principles.


I honestly don't buy that argument.

What you're saying is that instead of getting ways to prevent women from making illegal abortions (and I would like to note that I have no problems that in some special cases abortion is allowed), we simply legalized it.

That's like saying that the way to prevent theft is making stealing legal.


Nope. You can't prevent women from making abortions. Personally, I don't think you, or I, or anybody else have the right to forbid it. Only woman decides. Period. It's not immoral, it's not against any law, and if you look closely - you won't even find anything about abortions in any religious text (although I don't think any religion should mess up with things like that - we live in secular countries and that's great!)
The only thing that is possible is educate young people better. It's imperative for them to know what to do in order not to face unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But once it happens - only woman should decide. There always will be ways of making illegal abortions. You can't ban them completely. And women will always find ways to make them if they really want to. Go, stop a tide. Forbidding abortions is just as futile. Why ruining people's lives by punishing them then?
NMO
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:18 am

torq wrote:... it's not against any law...


Except, of course, when it is.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!

Ultimate Uplink Guide

Latest Patch
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:20 am

KingAl wrote:
torq wrote:... it's not against any law...


Except, of course, when it is.


My strong belief, that in this case such law should be cancelled.
NMO
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:29 am

Oh, sure, but unless we assume that the law is infallible then the fact that it isn't illegal doesn't show much either way. I'm not rejecting your opinion, I'm rejecting your logic.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!

Ultimate Uplink Guide

Latest Patch
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:24 am

I don't assume the law is infallible. I assume quite the opposie usually :) Mankind has created a lot of stupid laws. If the law is faulty it should be changed. That's why we elect parliaments - to make better laws. It's their responsibility. And it's usually men who forbid abortions to women. Men with complexes.
NMO
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:36 am

Due to the high volume of replies, I don't have the time or patience to reply to all of them. So, let me address a few things that stuck out to me (I'll quote but for ease's sake I won't include names).

Who determines that the mother's life is in danger?


In the quote you cited, I said a competent, licensed medical authority. If you can think of a person who would be better informed of the medical dangers of something, I'm all ears.

Wendryn and I are married. Are you suggesting that Wendryn and I abstain because we do not want to have a child right now? According to nearly every culture in the world, Wendryn and I have sexual rights to each other because we are married. That would include Mormonism. So, given that we are sanctioned for sexual relations, are you suggesting that if Wendryn became pregnant right now, she should not be allowed to terminate, as we are not quite ready to raise a child yet?

I am offended.


If you are offended then I'm sorry. I said that, in my opinion, couples who are not ready or unwilling to accept the potential consequences should abstain. Should a pregnancy happen and the couple doesn't think they can provide a proper home, they should place the child up for adoption, rather then abort it. That view is completely in harmony with what my Church teaches. If you take offense to a desire to preserve human life, that is your business.

. Why do you get to decide if a pregnancy is too dangerous for me? Why should I leave that to a medical professional who does not know (or, possibly, care, if I happen to be low-income) why I think the pregnancy is a danger to me? Sounds to me like you are implying that I am not able to perceive whether or not I am in danger. I think that is my decision. I know what is going on, and I can make decisions based on that which someone from the outside cannot. You don't get to tell me what danger is; I'm smart enough to figure that out myself.


I never said that I should make such a call, and I am saying now that I am in now way qualified to give you medical counsel. What I am saying is that a competent doctor knows more about medicine then the average person, and can make a professional decision on the matter, and can make an impartial judgment on a matter.

Why should you leave judgment on whether a pregnancy is too dangerous up to a doctor who has years of training in such things? Maybe because, oh I don't know, they are a doctor? If you really think that you can make a more sound analysis on the health risks of an internal issue while in the height of pregnancy with all the hormones and stress that it involves then a licensed, competent medical doctor, and that some how by your own intuition you can know more then what ultrasounds, DNA testing, and western medicine are able to produce, then you should really go into medicine yourself and save the world with your incredible gift.

And again, I never said that I get to tell you what is dangerous. I have no idea why you think that I was.

Men can leave at any point. Women can't leave until after they give birth. This is the base of the discussion, and the piece you are not accepting.


I already addressed that. I said in such a situation where the male leaves then all decisions should go to the female. Abdication of a father's responsibility means abdication of a father's rights, as far as I'm concerned.

Adoption agencies don't pay for rent and food, don't make it easier to explain a break in employment, don't make it easier to find a job in a slow market.


LDS Family Services assists with these things until a family is found, after which they take over. I'm sure there are other groups out there that provide similar services.

I can't think of many men who would agree to take a newborn baby from the mother and agree to raise it on his own. Glad to hear that, according to you, there are a bunch of them out there completely willing to take on a child with no help. Funny, then, how many child support issues are due to fathers who decided it was too much work...


I didn't say there would be many, but American law is based upon the idea of protecting the minority. Those few have a right to have their voices heard. The child support argument highlights what I said from the beginning, that mean have a legal responsibility for their children.

Equal decision:
Man: "No termination"
Woman: "Termination"
The way you are discussing this, the man's view would win because it is more equal, somehow. Thus, the woman would be forced to carry a fetus she does not want.


You are right, that is a sticky point. I think that, when such impasses are reached, that we should err on the side of life.

I just started reading threads because you seemed so buried in your fine, middle or upper class world that you couldn't see what most of the world deals with.


You have no idea what kind of life I've had.

Not that it is any of your business, but I have spent the last five years living well below the poverty level. I've lived in neighborhoods where gun fire at night was common (you learn to sleep through it), and volunteered with the Police (they assigned me to Domestic Violence, I got to see quite a lot of what the world deals with). I have worked in inner city neighborhoods, right here in America, where people didn't have windows from drive bys, where drugs were everywhere, and where some could not even afford running water. Currently, I am working my way through college. I have yet to ask anyone for any assistance in paying for it, and my bills, including rent, tuition, and books, have all been paid for with the money I have earned.

I have quite a lot of respect for your husband, and since you are his wife I will temper my remarks. You can throw around "big, bad, middle class" elitist comments all you want, but if you are trying to put some kind of class guilt spin on the matter, you picked the wrong person to try it on (if I am lucky, I might be middle class in about thee or four years).

He has a choice, he has access to drugs, he has all kinds of options.


You just lectured on the cost of birth control. So, does Prozac fall magically from the air? Last I checked anti-depressants can cost quite a lot. You don't get to choose if you have depression. If you are going to use an open ended statement like "he has access to drugs", then I would say the same to those in the situations you pointed out.

Got it. No sex until a stable marriage is achieved. That's going to happen. Does this apply to men, too? Because I live in Reno, and with the number of titty bars and hookers in the general area (aimed at men) I'm kind of seeing a double standard here.


Yes, it does apply to men as well. You site strip clubs and such as a double standard, yet I would say such places are bad and should not be frequented. If you are going to attack a belief of mine rooted in religious belief, then using things that I am also religiously opposed to is not the best way of trying to manufacture a double standard.

Lacking a paternity test, there is no definite knowledge of who the father is.


I'm not quite sure how to respond to that one, the very idea is gut wrenching (yet true in too many cases).

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests