Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lord J Esq on November 03, 2005, 12:15:24 am
-
After I made a casual reference to abortion in a different topic, the whole conversation was hijacked. It seems like that always happens when it comes to abortion. So, I know you all have an opinion on it. But some arguments get boring after you've heard them a zillion times without variation. In that spirit, I'd like to invite everyone to get their abortion feelings out on the table in this thread, and leave the topic be in other threads...or at least try not to hijack the whole discussion. Here is the decisive Compendium Abortion Extravaganza!
Isn't it crazy? No one is going to change anyone else's mind on this subject. Yet we bicker about it endlessly! Let's just accept the fight as a part of human nature, and try to contain it here.
I'll throw the first stone. In my following post, I will reproduce a copy of an argument I had on the GameFAQs War on Terror board early this year. It isn't my best abortion argument, but it is the only one that I thought to save a copy of. The italicized paragraphs are quotes from other people. The regular paragraphs are my replies.
Game's on!
-
(Note to Compendium readers: My original post in this GameFAQs thread referenced a link, now lost, to a news story about a teenage woman in Texas who got pregnant. She got scared, and since Texas law makes it very hard for someone like her to get an anonymous abortion, she panicked and asked her boyfriend to kick her in the stomach so that she would miscarry. He did, the baby died, and based on Texas anti-abortion laws the guy was sentenced to 40 years in prison. I took the opportunity to call for the execution of anyone in the Texas government who had supported that law, and also called out the forces of Christianity for the evildoers that they are. In the following excerpts from that thread, you will see my outline in fits and starts pretty much my entire point of view on abortion. The good stuff is in the last nine pages or so, but read the whole thing for the more organic, natural understanding of my position. Or don't. I'm not the boss of you.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cloud19 wrote:
You're a bit confused here. First of all, only Catholics are against contraceptives. Most Christians in the U.S. are Protestant.
Thank you, I am aware that most are Protestant. As it happens, the most provocative part of my earlier post was based upon (and a few lines lifted directly from) an article about a new vaccine developed by some big pharmaceutical companies that has been shown to prevent human papilloma virus, which is a major cause of gynecological cancer. This could eventually lead to the eradication of HPV and the elimination of the majority of all gynecological cancer cases on the planet. And yet the vaccine is being opposed by the religious establishment!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/19/opinion/main696613.shtml
It is an editorial, not a news article, so it comes with a bias. But the underlying facts are not in dispute. The vaccine works, and the religious establishment doesn’t want women to have it. They’d rather these women die than have premarital sex. Can you begin to understand my frustration?
Christians aren't against sex education, just against sex education as taught in schools, since these tend to focus on how to have safe sex, with little regard to abstinence.
The problem with abstinence education is that it doesn’t work well enough to stand on its own. Kids are still going to be curious, and they are still going to have sex. When kids are taught nothing about sex other than what the abstinence platform offers, sex becomes a forbidden fruit, because everyone possesses the biological urge to have sex. And when kids who only know abstinence do have sex, they are not going to know how to do it safely when they decide to go through with it. I am not going to say that abstinence education has no place in the classroom, but the teaching of proper sexual precautions is far more important and effective in preventing teen pregnancies and the transmission of STDs. Religious folks usually brush these corroborative studies aside, but I am here to tell you that you don’t teach a kid how drive a car by sending them to their room.
Personally, I have no problem with contraceptives or sex education in school, but I do feel that sex is something to be experienced between two loving adults, not children.
This is a legitimate area of debate. Children become sexually functional usually around ten or twelve years of age, and yet society illegalizes sex up through ages sixteen to eighteen, and, furthermore, discourages sex before marriage—even though the average marriage age is in the mid-twenties! So, when do we draw the line between “children” (who supposedly should not have sex) and “adults” (who supposedly have the knowledge for an informed consent)? If our society were more mature, we’d be able to teach kids about sex well enough that they could become safely sexually active as soon as puberty kicks in. But I recognize that our society is far from that, and so I support a higher age of consent in the meantime. Is eighteen too high? Probably. Sixteen seems reasonable, because most kids who aren’t on their way to becoming responsible adults by then…are not likely to go down that road in the remainder of their childhood.
As for the stipulation that consenting adults be “loving,” I don’t see the point in that. (Stay tuned for my following post!)
Cloud19 also wrote:
[Sex] should not be something that is viewed as a casual, fun activity. Yes, sex is pleasurable, but we are not animals. Animals base their decisions around self-gratification and instinct. Human beings are capable of restraining their instinctual urges and basing decisions upon logic and reason, with full consideration of the potential consequences.
I don’t believe that sex is sacred, and so naturally I wouldn’t seek to impose such onerous regulations on it. Sex is nice. Not holy. But we don’t need to have that argument, because we’re not likely to change each other’s minds. So, I’ll not press you on that point further.
However, I do want to point out that human beings are animals. We are animals who happen to posses the cognitive faculties imbued us by being sentient. There is no point trying to drive a wedge between the human mind and all the rest of nature. The former belongs in the category of the latter. Now, I am not trying to imply that humans are exempt from being responsible on grounds of being carnal. Rather, I am prodding you with the suggestion that it is not a legitimate excuse to discourage humans from having sex on the grounds that we can choose to abstain. You speak of logic and reason, and words like that speak to me very strongly indeed, so I say to you: Any such choice must indeed have a good reason. But that gets us back into the question of whether sex is only for the “loving,” and so here I conclude my tangent.
Sex is physically pleasurable, but it is also a form of emotional bonding that two loving adults can experience.
This could be interesting, if you would care to develop the idea into a framework for the prohibiting of sex outside “loving” relationships.
Promiscuous sex debases sex to its most animal form and is, in fact, a prime example of human degression to a state of pure animal lust. This is unacceptable if humans are to continue evolving further from animals.
Again, it is a mistake to draw this kind of a line between the human mind and the rest of nature. Humanity is the epitome of nature, not the adversary of it. Without an external reason that demonstrates that abstaining from sex is better than the alternative— “better” according to productive calculations that represent a comprehensive understanding of human potential—choosing to have sex casually is no more degrading to the human condition than choosing to drink water casually. The act in itself means nothing. We like it, we do it. Now, sometimes these actions prove to be detrimental. I’ll bet if lemmings knew that their mass migrations would lead to their being drowned in large numbers, they would try to reform their behaviors. Can you show that casual sex is more detrimental to society than the abstention from casual sex? I say that this religious-based taboo on sex, which in effect denies us the deepest part of our nature, is at the center of a profound neurosis in human civilization. The problems that result from sex veritably pale in comparison to the problems that result from abstinence. (Or is the sum of human history not something with which you are familiar?)
Cloud 19 also wrote:
While birth control should be certainly available, if you make it too available, the impression that is portrayed is, again, the encouragement of promiscuous sex. Birth control, especially the condom, has a strong association in people's minds with "casual" sex…
Your implication is that increased contraceptive availability increases sexual promiscuity. But this is probably not true, as evidenced by many studies on the subject, including one on the controversial morning-after pill (http://www.doctorndtv.com/news/detailnews.asp?id=1545). The study showed that this drug’s increased availability did not correspond to an increase in sexual promiscuity.
Furthermore, the underlying assumption to which you must subscribe is none other than the main point of the discussion at hand: Is sexual promiscuity a bad thing at all? Your reasoning is circular when you invoke the very thing you are trying to prove.
However, putting these legitimate concerns aside and addressing your point directly, this statistic must be weighed against the number of people who, having received an abstinence-only education, will then go on to have unsafe sex, and become pregnant or diseased because of it. Your solution of restricting contraceptive availability may well cause more problems than it solves. Look at some of the more sexually liberal countries, like the Netherlands, where sex itself is common but pregnancies and STDs are low. So ask yourself: Is it pregnancies and STDs that you want to do away with...or sex itself? I encourage you to read some of the primary literature on this subject; you will find your position to be incomplete at best, and flat-out wrong at worst.
ShadowGldtr wrote:
…most denominations are against contraceptives since they are "denying life" that god gave us to create.
From the horse’s mouth, this is what I have been saying all along. This is the sort of sentiment that ruffles my feathers so badly, because it implies that women should suffer and sometimes die rather than enjoy safe contraception. Abstaining from sex is not an attainable ideal; it isn’t an ideal at all. (Or, rather, the claim that abstinence outside marriage is virtuous, remains unproven.) When we evolve beyond gender entirely, then sex will go the way of the dodo. But for the time being, sex is a major part of our biology, our psychology, and our heritage as a species. Restricting it as harshly as many religious folks would is simply a terrible solution that has already helped perpetuate thousands of years of suffering on humankind, and women in particular.
TheFourGuardians wrote:
Actually, I have absolutely nothing against women(feminists yes, but women's rights, no.)
I have learned this lesson the hard way, that the causes that champion personal liberties for those who are oppressed are often much less savory than the liberties themselves. “Feminism” may leave a sour taste in your mouth, but women are never going to get the rights they deserve without it. For many years I failed to realize that, but then I tied it together with the historical context. Abolitionists also violated public decorum, frustrated many people, made a lot of enemies in their time…but look what they accomplished!
You must accept feminism if you truly believe in women’s rights. Your only recourse, then, is to attempt to influence feminism toward a form that suits you more. But will you find that, should you succeed in this, the cause for women’s rights gets set back? This is a question without an easy answer…because it is about who we are, and that sort of thinking is often left to the realm of the philosophers. It’s hard.
However, I also like the idea of an innocent(maybe that's the thing. In fact, it is!) life being spared.
This is an old argument with a deeply-drawn line between it. I say that a clump of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence isn’t a human life; you say that it is. I suppose there’s no point in arguing about it. But for those who face the decision whether or not to destroy this tiny life, it is not our place to make that decision for them. It is our place to see to it that they have the liberty to decide for themselves. To put it simply, the woman’s life is more important than that of the unborn proto-human inside her. I will get into that in much greater detail later on.
HyproTheII wrote:
If you cannot change the environment, change yourself. Do not whine about the government or any policy. Remember: Under ANY policy, ANY politics, ANY tyranny, there are successful ppl living comfortably. If you have the problem, it is your own fault . Or how can other ppl get used to it while you cannot?
You do not realize the ramifications of what you are saying. You are saying that the majority is always right, and that those who suffer by majority rule are wrong to seek to change majority opinion. This sort of thinking justified slavery, justified the Holocaust, justified the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II, justified the forced labor of Chinese immigrants on American railroads…it justified a long list of horrors committed in the name of an ignorant people too blinded by their own culture to recognize their folly from the greater perspective of history!
No, I would encourage you most sincerely to reformulate your argument…because you’d have to be a pretty terrible person to deride someone who balks at being oppressed.
Texas has anti-abortion law, so it applies to everyone live in Texas. It is not it applies to certain people only. If it pisses you off while the majority has no problem with it, it is your own fault for being a slut, end of story.
This is the sort of sexist opinion to which I can offer no reasonable reply. If you feel that way, then you’re one of the people who “cannot be helped” that I mentioned at the beginning of this topic. Your opinions are yours to keep, but your wish to enact them upon the land is rightly nullified by the rule of law and our love of justice.
Every time students complain about their instructors, I always ask them the same question" Are there ppl making A and B in your class? If there are, then it is your own fault not to be successful in class. Everyone uses the same text books, everyone listens to the same teacher, so you are the only one having the problem."
What you have been trying to say all the while, I believe came out differently than how you meant it. I think what you are trying to say is that people cannot blame society for their own failings. This much is true. But where does personal failing end and genuine suffering begin? If the instructor was unjust toward the female students only, would these students be wrong to complain about that? No. Injustice is still injustice, whether targeted at an entire society or the tiniest, most invisible people in it. Your argument is too simplistic to apply to this discussion rationally.
BigDan wrote:
This is where you start your long string of bull**** generalizations. I, myself, am a Christian. I was raised in a Christian home. I'm against abortion in all cases except for those that the mothers life is at risk. I'm also for birth control. I have no problems with condoms, diaphragms, birth control pills, morning after pills, etc. My father, who is one of the more religious men I know, feels the same way. So if your going to label all religious conservatives one way, at least bring some credible proof with you before you even get started.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I am not speaking for every Christian. Instead I am speaking for the overall character of Christianity in the United States. Telling me about yourself does little to address that. The prevailing Christian opinion is against most of the things you mentioned, as evidenced by individuals who have posted in this thread, by the sermons and events held by churches across the nation, by the Christian propaganda machine, and by the mainstream media (itself another type of propaganda machine). Folks like Mr. Dobson, leader of the group “Focus on the Family” regularly denounce contraceptives, and that is only the beginning of their terrible crimes. So…you want me to give credible proof? Don’t sensationalize the truth. The extent to which you choose to deny what many of your fellow Christians and Christian institutions strongly believe is more an insult to them than it is to me. If you want to know what led me to create this topic in the first place, then just click on the link I provided in my very first post. Texas has established anti-abortion laws and fetal murder laws that have led to the scandal which I mentioned. These laws are evidence of the prevailing Christian attitudes. You might also click on the link I provided to Cloud in a recent post, about the vaccine developed to prevent HPV and the cancer that it causes—a lifesaving vaccine opposed by the religious right on the grounds that it will lead to premarital sex.
BigDan also wrote:
Also, there is nothing wrong with sex for pleasure. I'm all for it, although I believe it should be shared between two consenting adults. If you're not married, go for it, if you're h0mosexual, go for it. But use some mother ****ing protection.
You see, Dan, this is good news! I’m glad you feel this way. I wish more Christians did. I wouldn’t have nearly the problem that I do with Christianity if it weren’t a proselytizing religion. Christianity forces itself on people wherever it can. I have yet to find a Christian who can explain to me how gay marriage has ruined their own marriage. And yet anti-gay sentiments are rampant—and not just sentiments, but an active effort to deny this group of people their human rights. Gay rights is obviously a very convenient, clear-cut example for me to use, but there are many more if you would prefer I choose another.
Anyhow, your personal views do not vindicate Christianity as a whole. You’ll need more power and influence first…you’ll need to make a difference, and for the better. When I say “Christianity does so-and-so…” individuals such as yourself may feel as though I’m talking about them in particular, as though I were getting into the living rooms of every Christian in America. That’s balderdash. I’m not so stupid as to speak for individuals, because trying to do that is impossible. We can only speak for ourselves. But groups of people often project very clear, simplistic messages. Likewise, group messages represent a range of views commonly held by some, and so I can speak to “those who agree with the message X” without encompassing all people simultaneously. Now, when you personally admit to something that I take issue with, then I am in a position to point out an individual flaw in you and tie it into your own interpretation of the Christian faith. Fortunately, many people—including yourself—have done so in this topic. Going one by one, I can build a case against Christianity at the individual level. But I would never attempt to speak for all Christian individuals at once, and to the extent you have interpreted otherwise, I can only regret the confusion I have caused. I make my living by respecting individuals. I don’t try to change people by lobbing insults at them. I try to reason with them.
I have nothing against emergency contraceptives. If they are going to be given to a minor though, I believe the parent/guardian should be made aware of it.
Why should the parent or guardian be made aware of it? Be honest with yourself: In how many instances would mandatory parental notification prove superior in the long run? Parental notification discourages responsibility on the part of the child by validating her choice for contraception with parental consent. Parental notification sets up an antagonism between the child and her parents, especially when the parents are religious conservatives who would be deeply offended or hurt by their daughter’s expression of sexuality. Parental notification in many cases leads to a stigma on the child, emotional abuse, and even physical harm. If a kid wants emergency contraception and doesn’t want her parents to know…then I support her right to maintain her privacy. Offer her a psychological consultation prior to the administration of the medication; but don’t force her to bring her parents into it.
A child’s parents are great pillars of order in her or his world, yet parents often subscribe to the same foolish notions I’m arguing against in this topic. Ironically, if children had more open-minded parents, they would be much more able to confide in them without facing a religious confrontation that could crack the family forever, potentially causing irreversible harm to the kid’s personality. If she wants to pursue contraception without her parents, I say let her.
ShadowGldtr wrote:
When the sperm hits the egg, weee there is life (Catholic perspective)
You own statement contradicts its own legitimacy. The “Catholic perspective” as you call it has yet to establish itself as a correct one. The problem with most religions is that they ask for faith, faith in that which cannot be proven. They do this because older generations of religions were struck down for being empirically false. Newer religions such as Christianity don’t make this mistake; they place the proof for their claims in an Authority that can never be questioned. Well…I just don’t buy it. The language of human understanding is physical truth.
My position, for which there is a great deal of factual evidence, is that a tiny clump of cells does not constitute a human life. Yes, if nurtured under the proper conditions it will likely become a human life, and so then the argument becomes where the cutoff should be. You say life begins at conception. I say it should begin at birth. I’d be willing to compromise, but only on scientifically verifiable grounds—and that’s harder than you might think, because it has to take into account not only the circumstances of the fetus, but the circumstances of the mother.
Yea, basically. [it’s legal only for a doctor to abort a baby]
Since BigDan has established that he does not respect people who make claims without proof, I’d like to take a page from his book and ask you to provide yours. I am not disagreeing with your claim, but neither will I believe it until I see the applicable Texas or federal laws.
Well if it was on "accident" no one could prove it, but if she did it on perpuse, then ya, it is illegal
Shadow, if you had read the link I provided in my original post in this topic, you would have realized that the woman herself cannot be held accountable for the death of her fetus. This is the law—and one of Texas’ more sensible laws, I might add—and so in this case you are directly wrong.
Perfect psyco wrote:
You know a reasonable person would have gone to a different state and got the murder over with.
This is one of the reasons why the whole scandal (see original post) is so egregious. This girl was a naive teenager who didn’t have the worldly experience—or the physical resources—to hightail it to another state and have an abortion in a calm manner. Think about what you are saying. We can’t expect kids to behave like adults. Do we punish them for this, or do we help them? The anti-abortion law punishes them. Kids are going to have sex. Let’s face it: That’s the truth of the human condition. Sex happens. By making it almost impossible for teenagers like this one to get a safe, anonymous, easy abortion, we drive them to the circumstances where they will commit foolish acts. Instead of imprisoning the girl’s boyfriend for forty years, we should imprison the people who passed the law that drove these two people to come up with their own solution where society deliberately failed them.
oldphart wrote:
buddy do you review before you hit "post"? That's pretty hippy-pitiful talk there. The pothead calling ma and pa kettle black.
Calling names without a basis for so doing does little to establish your credibility. For the record, I am something of a square. I’ve never been drunk, never consumed illegal drugs, never abused legal ones for the purpose of getting a rush or whatever, and have never even smoked so much as a cigarette. So if your aim was to imply that I am too intoxicated for my points to be valid, then you have missed the mark. You’ll have to try something that holds water.
The rest of your post sounds more like the resentment of an ex toward his previous partner, so I will leave that in your private domain rather than pressing you on any of it. (Not that I will expect you to appreciate me for it, but that’s honor for you. It’s not about the recognition.)
Cloud19 wrote:
I thought I'd take the time to answer each and every one of these questions for you. So, have fun! =P
In the time it has taken me to move ahead with a full day of my life, I have gotten so far behind in this topic that now I have the chance to reply to you yet again. But so be it! Because you seem like one of the good guys…
To me, it is because I believe that every human deserves the opportunity to prove they can be a productive citizen of their respective nation, and thus earn the priveledge (not right) to life.
I agree with you almost exactly here. The only difference is that I do believe people have a “right” to life. I word my own ideology differently: People’s lives have no meaning until they prove otherwise. This places the value of human life not in life itself but in our accomplishments based upon our potential and our circumstances.
However, I do not see a fetus as a human life until it reaches the third trimester. At this point, as you should know, the child can be born through induced labor, or cut out through Caesarian, and the child has a good chance to survive. This is because most development is complete. The children are still underdeveloped, but are undoubtedly human. To deny this is to deny that premature babies are human until they reach the time when they were supposed to be born.
I anticipated that someone would make this point. To me there are only two good cutoffs for an abortion. One is at birth itself. The other is at the inception of cognition. To be honest with you, if it were only the baby we were talking about, and to the extent that our medical knowledge can bring premature babies into this world with a very good chance at living a normal life, I would say that abortion should be restricted at the inception of cognition.
However, it’s not just the unborn child we’re talking about. It’s the mother too. Yes, we could rip a woman open against her will and remove the thing that she herself has gestated up to this point, but that would be a gross violation of her individual rights. If she chooses for that to happen, then by all means. But most women would not like to be ripped open against their will. Neither do many of them want to deal with a pregnancy. In some cases, it would cause them extreme hardship psychologically, socially, or physically, and on rarer occasions it could even result in injury or death.
Women must bear the onus of pregnancy alone. It is their solemn right to choose whether or not this is a burden they wish to accept. Their life experiences, their highly-developed identity, their will trumps that of even a highly developed fetus who has had no experiences, developed no identity, and does not possess much of a will at all. Sentience itself doesn’t come into being until newborns have lived outside the womb for many months and begun to interact with their environments and develop their brains. Yes, I accept that it is the destruction of life to commit an abortion. But human life? The only way to define human life is in what it means to be human, and I have already said that people’s lives mean nothing until they have proven otherwise. So here we are, full circle.
Cloud19 also wrote:
Sometimes, Lord, war is necessary to protect the interests of your nation. I am not speaking of a particular war, and of course some wars have been unjust.
Yes, I accept just wars. I was making rhetorical waves. However, unjust wars are an atrocity, and that is the substantive idea beneath the rhetoric. Neoconservatives have led us to Iraq on the grounds that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—he didn’t—and that the Iraqi people would be better off—tens of thousands of them are now dead, and many more living in worse shape than they were before the war. The neocons who planned the war have done a terrible job with the postwar occupation, and now our military is mired in Iraq and our military is beginning to suffer in morale and recruitment. Yet these same people, who so easily send our troops to war to kill and be killed in the name of a democracy that seems too premature for the Iraqi culture, start to foam at the mouth when women here at home try to control their bodies. It’s hypocritical, and criminal. That was my point here.
Or slaughter plants for food, eh Mr. Vegan? =P
I draw two lines here. When it comes to deciding which life is fit to slaughter for food and which is not, I draw the first line at the point of a brain developed enough to suffer extensively. Plants do not have a central nervous system for them to feel pain as we know it. Most food animals do. No brain…no pain. That’s where I draw the first line.
The second line is more ambiguous. If food animals can be raised humanely and slaughtered immediately, without causing them to suffer, then I can support that too.
As I have already explained, when it comes to abortion I draw the line at birth, having taken into account both the fetus’ rights and the mother’s. Once a child is born, a sufficiently humane society can absorb it, and it becomes no further burden to the woman. (Laws like this are prevalent in liberal states, where women can safely and anonymously abandon their children to authorized authorities without facing a penalty. This helps encourage women to decide against abortion, and it helps discourage them from abandoning their newborns to die in a dumpster somewhere, which is much more common in conservative areas of the nation where the law is less kind toward new mothers and the prevailing culture scorns and punishes women who have born children outside of marriage.
Because the aim of a government is to care for its own citizens. We have no jurisdiction in the affairs of other nations, and it is not their people our leaders have sworn to protect.
Rubbish. This is the imperialist in me talking, but we have a responsibility to the entire human species, and to all other sentient or proto-sentient life on this world. When this responsibility contradicts itself, as it does with the issue of mother’s rights versus fetal rights, then we can take into account such things as nationality and what have you. Likewise, by recognizing that mothers are more human than unborn fetuses who have yet to develop most of their conscious faculties, their identity, and most importantly their sentience, we ethically are obligated to side with the mothers.
Cloud19 also wrote:
Because, as of now, we have no other means of which to power our vehicles, lights, or computers. Our means of generating electricity and power all pollutes the environment in some way.
As someone who has studied environmental issues in great detail, I would like to share something interesting with you. I am not anti-technology. In fact I am pro-technology. Any rational mind would see that technology is the only way to move forward. But technology can take many forms, and some of those forms can be destructive.
I will support this with as much factual citation as you like, but for the interest of saving space, I will tell you a simple truth: Technology could be far cleaner than it is. This is true in every sector of the economy. The reason technology is so polluting is that it is cheaper, and until recently the economy as a whole has not realized the true cost of being cheap.
These business interests do not realize the harm they have caused and will continue to cause. Yet ignorance of a fact does not obviate that fact. Businesses that resist cleanup efforts in their own operation promote death and suffering—the very thing they seek to prevent by opposing abortion rights. In this case not only are they hypocritical by virtue of ignorance, but they are wrong on both counts. They should be anti-pollution and pro-abortion. Ah, the inanities of life! =)
We don't [punish those who lack wealth]. Where'd you get this idea?
Considering how thoughtful you are, I assume that I did not get my point across clearly. We certainly do punish those who lack wealth. For example, by converting healthcare to the private sector we price the poor right out of the market, even though these people often perform the most hazardous labor and are in the least position to pay for health expenses on their own. For another example, we prevent the poor from attending college by forcing them to pay tuition rather than guaranteeing them an education that is sustained by a national tax. And speaking of taxes, the sales tax disparages against the poor, who spend a greater proportion of their income on goods that carry a sales tax. Many of these are classic liberal arguments; I would temper that by saying that I’m no socialist, and that I respect the private sector for its ability to innovate and to generally be more cost-efficient. However, innovation and cost-efficiency are sometimes less important than universal availability and standards of quality, and inasmuch as services like healthcare are left primarily to the private sector, this is one instance where we disparage against the poor.
More locally, we tend to shun those who are not well-to-do, especially if they look like they’re on hard times. In the past couple of decades, society has taken on a much more classless appearance, which is a good thing, but even today there are times when being poor is enough to be spurned by one’s neighbors—and certainly in the recent past this was much more flagrant.
Conservatives tout “the sanctity of life” when they oppose abortion, and yet look at how both they and our social institutions mistreat the least among us in society.
Cloud19 also wrote:
Because when you murder an innocent citizen, you have forfeited your priveledge to life (in my view), and thus deserve to be destroyed. For others, it is punishment. However, even you should be capable of recognizing the difference between an innocent and a convicted murderer.
I will exempt you, but for those who believe that life is innately precious—and people of that opinion far outnumber us—believing in the death penalty is contradictory to opposing abortion. This is why most of the civilized world has outlawed the practice.
I agree that we should cease eating such unhealthy foods, but people deserve the freedom to indulge in unhealthy and/or dangerous activities as long as it is not a harm to others. This is what it means to be free.
Much as you have said, women who pursue an abortion pose no harm to others.
And now, finally, I have finished!
Cloud19 wrote:
I am not suggesting we only teach abstinence, or that we shouldn't teach sex education, or about contraceptives. My only point is that we teach how to have [safe] sex, not necessarily if we should. It seems to me that most of public education has given up on abstinence entirely, resigning, as you have put it, that children will have sex. This is unacceptable.
I will grant that I haven’t been inside a middle school classroom in many years, but I recall no slant in the sex education I received that would have been geared toward condoning sex. The attitude from the course material was that “you kids are going to have sex, we acknowledge it, and here’s what you need to do to make it as safe as possible.” There was no bias in favor of having sex other than that the material itself assumed that sex was going to happen—a true assumption.
In any case, it seems that we are in relative agreement on this point. I favor sex education, and apparently so do you, and furthermore I would not be averse in principle to a nonreligious discussion of the prudence of having sex in terms of the personal disruption it can cause to people’s lives. We differ on when sex is “prudent,” but that is beyond the realm of sex education, so I guess we are at an understanding on this point!
I could make the same argument about crime. There will still be murderers, so why outlaw it? There will still be theft, so why outlaw it? Or here's one that might strike closer to home: There will always be poverty, so why work to eliminate it?
These supporting examples are all logical fallacies which incorrectly reason that, because sex happens and is not outlawed, therefore crime and all those other things that happen and are outlawed lead to a contradiction in principle. This is not so; rather, the point of contention between us is the appropriateness of sex. If sex is more appropriate than crime, then your comparisons are not valid because the outlawing of something less appropriate has no relevance to the legality of something more appropriate, other than possibly the magnitude of appropriateness, which, as I said, is the central dispute between us.
Cloud19 also wrote:
Not true. The very religious discourage sex before marriage. Society in no way encourages that. If so, how does it? In our education system? Nope. In our music? Nope. In television programs? Nope. Where have you gotten this idea?
You underestimate the power of the Dark Side—er, of the religious establishment in this country. What you call the “very religious,” I call a significant minority of all Americans, and a controlling influence on our entire society. Again we come back to James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their ilk. Society’s concept of sex as demonstrated by the media, and in literature, game, and film is more than a bit skewed.
Have you ever been talking with someone to whom you were extremely attracted, and found yourself flirting so heavily that you embarrassed yourself by behaving out of character? This is how America feels about sex in general. As long as that bikini is still there, men want to see it get smaller and smaller, exposing every last inch of bare female skin other than the genitals themselves. And yet, one slip of the nipple on Super Bowl Sunday and America starts foaming at the mouth. “The media has gone too far this time!” they rant. The FCC bunkers down and starts fining stations for lewd displays. Opinion polls regularly establish that Americans are desensitized to extreme magnitudes of fictional violence but react uncomfortably to full nude sex scenes and the actual depiction of human carnality.
It’s painfully obvious that we as a society want sex very badly, and are so embarrassed by how close to sex we’ll actually go, that we recoil violently against the core premise of sex itself. It’s like Homer’s forbidden doughnut…you want to eat the whole thing, but you resist the last morsel of it because 99 percent of a doughnut is not “a doughnut.” It is the concept of the whole that people crave, and therefore the concept of the whole that they discriminate against. Meanwhile, they continue to consume the vast majority of the proverbial sex doughnut, on the grounds that the sum of the parts are less than the whole. America’s sexual attitudes are contradictory, sophomoric, reactionary, discriminatory, and inhibitive.
I strongly disagree [with sex at the onset of puberty], and here's why: Development of the brain is not yet complete when puberty kicks in. Sex is something to be considered carefully, especially in today's age of prevalent STDs. I will always suggest you wait until your mental faculties reach their full development before engaging in sexual activity.
The incomplete development you cite does not have the restrictive impact on children’s capacity for judgment that you imply. The cognitive ability to make judgments is established at a much younger age; the environmental aspect of it—the wisdom of one’s judgments—is what can take a lifetime to mature. There are scant biological grounds for restricting sex once the body becomes sexually capable. Any and all restrictions would have to be based on a higher-order “–ology.” The body itself is ready when it says it is ready.
Cloud19 also wrote:
Secondly, I can drive a wedge between the human mind and all the rest of nature. And here it is: All the rest of nature is driven by instinct, but humans possess the capacity to act in opposition to instinct, and consider each of their actions with logic and reason.
As one of the most supreme advocates you will ever find of reason trumping emotional urges and primitive instinct, you might be surprised to find that I acknowledge your delimitation entirely, and yet disagree with your interpretation of it. Reason is not separate from the rest of nature, because it is driven by and based upon the same underlying material forces. The faculties of cognitive reasoning are a new phenomenon in nature, agreed, and they allow for new behavioral norms to emerge, also agreed, but inasmuch as this basic condition establishes grounds for the invalidity of certain types of sexual interaction in particular, I see no case for your argument. You are pulling a judgment out of somewhere, and it isn’t from the cognitive aspect of the equation.
If the entire reason for your decision [to have sex] is "pleasure" then that is simply not logical, and you are no better than an animal.
This is false reasoning. The pursuit of pleasure is not inherently contrary to logical thinking. Quite the contrary! Most forms of logical reasoning rely upon some underlying shift from a less pleasurable to more pleasurable state, where “pleasure” is defined extremely loosely.
Indeed, if you take everything else out of the taboo surrounding sex, leaving behind only the fact that it is physically pleasurable, then this is a reason for society to promote having more sex, not less. It is a basic utilitarian principle, and while I am not a utilitarian myself, I’d be daft to say that anything inherently physically pleasurable is inappropriate specifically because it causes pleasure. That’s the sort of Christian mischief that has brought us to where we are today, still struggling with all these pointless sexual taboos.
And where does this leave love and hate? These two are the purest forms of emotion…
It’s not on-topic, but I can’t help myself from disagreeing. Both love and hate have more of a reputation than they deserve. =P
Cloud19 also wrote:
I agree, but then why use the word "right" if [life] is something to be earned? I feel "priveledge" fits better. However, as I suggested earlier, language is limiting.
Language is not limited. We are simply not at an understanding yet. The context in which I used “right” was sociological. Once a human being is born into the world, it is incumbent upon (human) society to nurture that life toward its full potential. This is for the betterment of society itself as much as for the sake of the individual.
However, since you raised the point, I also believe that human potential itself has an absolute, innate right to be nurtured—defined not by the universe, but by humanity itself without contradiction by the universe—which, from my agnostic point of view, is in the position to neither affirm nor condemn any declarations of meaning sentient creatures wish to assign to the underlying physical realities of existence. In this case, the purpose of assigning human beings the inherent right to develop their potential is based upon the self-affirming value of knowledge, which the sentient mind is able to attain and exploit like no other entity known to exist.
And, before you bring it up, the reason why this position does not contradict my pro-abortion stance again returns to the rights of the mother over those of the unborn fetus. Her potential is worth more, and her wishes therefore are weighted more highly. It is fallacious to consider individual rights on an individual basis in the fashion that would lead to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, because deciding individual rights at the individual level will invariably impose hardships upon wide segments of society. This is why individual rights must be established at the societal level. Or, in other words, my right to kill you for dinner is trumped by your right to live to see another day. And so it goes for abortion: The woman’s rights outrank the unborn’s. Why? Because of what it means to be human. This is the key point forever lost on those who define humanity in terms of a soul they claim cannot be measured by mortal means.
Hold on a second. Do you know anything about Caesarians? They are actually perfectly safe, first of all. The risk is no more than dental surgery! Secondly, at that point we are no longer talking about one life, we are talking about two very definite lives. How can you honestly weigh the potential inconvenience and incredibly slight risk to the mother against the definite death of the infant?
You are not only underestimating the risk, but you are missing my point. It doesn’t matter how risky or how safe something is, because if it’s wrong, then it’s wrong. Abrogating a woman’s rights is not only wrong—due to the hardships and potential hardships it imposes upon her—but it carries the additional wrongness of imposing a physical health risk upon her in the process of depriving her of these rights! That’s more vile than a bowl of Seven-Wrong Stew!
I know you might think I am sidestepping the issue of “inconveniencing the mother” versus “killing the unborn fetus,” but what I’ve been trying to say for a while now is that killing the fetus is much less regrettable a loss than forcing an unwilling mother to complete a pregnancy or to be cut open to deliver prematurely. Women who are willing to abstain from abortion are welcome to do so, and so much the better. But no one should have the right to force women who are unwilling to abstain because they face legitimate risks of hardship, to undergo a full pregnancy against their will. Women will never achieve equality under the law before this right to self-determination is enshrined in our culture and on our law books.
Cloud19 also wrote:
But the problem here is that this means that, by your definition, children are to be sacrificed to save adults, and the elderly are to be sparred above all younger.
Potential is not a linear function that increases with age. Unborn embryos and fetuses are a special case because these proto-humans have yet to develop most of that which can be used to classify them as humans. By the time they start walking and talking, they are worth as much as anyone else in the world. Some people accomplish their legacy at age twenty; others at age eighty…it doesn’t jive to say that human value is a function of age. Age increases experience, and therefore increases wisdom, but experience and wisdom are not where I choose to place the definition of humanity.
What is at issue here is that the unborn are a special case. Each unborn child is directly, physically, via an umbilical cord, connected to another living being—a being whose existence outranks its own. The status of the unborn is unique among all age groups, because their fate is in direct, one-to-one conflict with the fate of those upon whom they depend, and from whose lives they may certainly detract in the most deleterious ways.
Again, we are NOT comparing the woman's life to the infant's life. We are comparing a moment of discomfort for women (the Caesarian) and a definite life ending event for the infant. There's a big difference there, bub.
Maybe you are not making this comparison, but for me it is the motivation for my entire argument. Pregnancy isn’t like getting a flu shot, which might take up a few hours of your day, hurt for a couple of seconds during the injection, and maybe give you a rash. No, pregnancy consumes many months of a woman’s life, and the postnatal period of recovery extends that even further. We’re not talking about two hours lost. We’re talking about a major physiological stress on the woman’s body for nearly an entire year, as well as almost a year of being excluded from the human community—“pregnant women should not do this; pregnant women should not do that; pregnant women should go live in a bubble.” But that’s not even the nub of my gist! At the very core of it all is the fact that, for almost a year, a pregnant woman must abandon a great deal of her ambitions, inasmuch as they might conflict with the effort of gestating a healthy baby. In this essential way, being pregnant against one’s will is like living in a very comfortable jail. Only by choosing to go through with it are the bars removed.
So yes, I am very much making the comparison between the rights of an undeveloped scrap of flesh versus a grown woman with a distinct character. Until you understand that, I don’t think you are going to be able to comprehend my point of view.
Let me say this, here at the end: Abortion is not about privacy. It is not about convenience. It is not about sexual pleasure. It is about women’s rights. It is about human rights extended in the most equitable fashion possible, and anyone who says that women’s rights are beneath men’s is a liar. So long as hapless men continue to argue on message boards that women must abstain from sex until they are beholden to a single man, and that, once pregnant, they must complete their pregnancy under all but the most extenuating circumstances, society condemns women as inferior. Sexism is the worst crime humanity has ever conceived. The plight of the unborn, who possess nothing more than the rudiments of that which will eventually develop a human identity, is chicken feed compared with the fundamental right of half the human population to live on par with the other half.
I tell you again: Forcing a woman to complete an pregnancy against her will is nothing more than locking her away in a comfortable prison. Opposing abortion is to advocate for controlling the bodies of every woman alive, all at once. Because of that, it is more evil than rape.
Sex…sex for pleasure. If only women would abstain, we wouldn’t have to argue about abortion, right? Wrong. That sort of illogical religious thinking has the blood of the ages on its hands. We are inherently sexual beings. Consenting individuals must be free to have sex at their discretion, throughout the whole realm of their private lives. And those who would say that sex is solely for the purpose of procreation, do not understand what sets human beings apart from other animals. Our biology and instincts ensure that sex continues to be something we both crave and enjoy, but gone is the underlying motivation for sex as the means of procreation. We evolved to desire sex itself, because sex leads to children, and now that we are a sentient race in touch more or less with the basic tenets of rational behavior, we can draw a logical line between our physical urge for sex with the completely different, biologically abstract desire for having children. And because our technology—absent the efforts of blockheaded religious conservatives—empowers us to ensure that procreation can be completely extracted from sex in physical terms as well, we are free to indulge the insatiable desire for sex without consigning ourselves to the existence of lesser animals, whose entire adult lives are consumed by the union of sexual behavior and procreation. We have dissolved that union. In the human species, procreation and sex for pleasure are two different subjects. Because our inner animal continues to yearn for sex, we cannot abstain from sex without perverting the entire human race—as can be seen by looking at every society on Earth today. Yet when, against all intentions, sex leads to pregnancy, it is because we are more than mere animals, it is because we are human beings, that we are self-entitled to the bottomless justice known as inalienable human rights. Pregnant women have the right to control their own bodies, especially because of the hardships to which pregnancy exposes them. It is an obfuscating oversimplification to say that consensual sexual promiscuity—which mustn’t be restricted, for the sake of human mental and cultural health—constitutes upon a woman the waiving of her rights to control her body and terminate an unwanted pregnancy—which must be her right alone, for the sake of justice and civil liberties.
That’s what we have here: The cultural wellbeing of humanity, and the civil rights of human beings. The former leads to difficulties in the latter, but this is the way it is, this is the way our biology has evolved, and, so long as we remain the creatures that we are now, today, at this chapter in our evolution as a species and as a people, we must contend with the challenges posed by acknowledging our sexuality, and this includes giving women the right to an abortion at the expense of the unborn.
The real world is lean on easy answers. Don’t pretend. God doesn’t do your thinking for you in black and white terms so simple and clear-cut that even an ancient Roman olive farmer could understand. Open your eyes. See the world for what it really us. Tackle the fascinating conundrums of human nature. Wake up and live.
Cloud19 also wrote:
The only objective stance is that, no matter what we choose, life will be ended to sustain our own lives. It is enough for me to show, in other words, that it is not hypocritical to slaughter animals but still value life (though the way I value life is not all-encompassing, even human life).
There is still the element of cruelty, in that it would be cruel to force an unwilling woman to complete a pregnancy. Where livestock is concerned, the cruelty is eliminated by adopting humane growing conditions and making slaughter quick and painless. In the case of abortion, however, the only way to eliminate the cruelty of forced gestation is for the woman to decide she wants to do it. Nor is it a suitable technique to simply harass her with attempts at persuasion until she changes her mind. A frank discussion with her doctor prior to an abortion, and perhaps another round of discussions with the biological father or others who are important to the woman—but with no one whom she desires not to confer with—is all she should have to undertake before being permitted to proceed with contraception, or an abortion. If she is not convinced by these discussions, then any attempt to force her to continue the pregnancy is cruelty.
Yes, there is the element of cruelty against the unborn. But this dilemma cannot be beneficially avoided, as it would be worse to continue on in our barbaric sexual taboos championed by the religious forces of the Earth, and, so long as the dilemma must be confronted, it has been my argument up to this point, and in full, now here completed, that the rights of the woman, based upon the humanity of the woman, versus that of the unborn thing inside her, trump those of the latter.
And there I believe we have it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about this.
~ Josh
~~~
Lordaeron86 wrote:
Who the **** thinks a fetus isn't human? An argument can be made about whether or not they are people and have rights, but wtf is this not human crap? What the hell do you define human as? Give me a link to a medical dictionary that defines humans as a baby+. If fetuses aren't part of their respective species, then are they their own species? Do they have their own classification?
You are right. In the animal sense of the word human, unborn humans are human too. But anti-abortionists never use "human" in the animal sense. In fact they go to great lengths to allege that humanity has nothing to do with animals, didn't evolve from no damn dirty ape, and all that other religious rubbish that we all know and expect from them. Nay, instead, anti-abortionists use the word "human" in the sense that a human "being" is something sacred and inviolable. Human beings have an identity as it were, that the anti-abortionists say makes us special and worthy of life where other animals deserve nothing but to end up on our dinner tables. They say it isn't our bodies but our souls that make us human.
Well, fine. But if they want to use that kind of a definition, they've got to substantiate it. And so far as I can tell, the only thing that separates us from the animals is the nature of our identity: namely, the degree of our sentience, the depth of our cognitive and psychological faculties, and our memories. We therefore have an identity predicated upon our experiences and our sentient will. And yet unborn humans have neither! They have no experiences and no sentience. Oh, they do have limited cognition and operational nervous systems, but the sentience isn't there yet. So the anti-abortionists are defeated on their own turf...unborn humans are "proto-"human in the sense that they have yet to possess the "soul" they allege makes a human special.
What the anti-abortionists want us to believe is that humanity exists supernaturally--that is, non-physically--which is rubbish, dreck, malarky, codswallop, poppycock, balderdash, blatherskite, hooey, dross and cobblers, and nonsense too.
-
In my eyes, abortion should only be done if the birth can harm or kill the mother and/or child, or if it was rape.
-
In my eyes, abortion should only be done if the birth can harm or kill the mother and/or child, or if it was rape.
Yeah, basically Three Exception Pro-Life...
And Josh, that is alot of... debating. Sum it up, I don't want to be reading other people debating each other for the next hour.
-
In my eyes, abortion should only be done if the birth can harm or kill the mother and/or child, or if it was rape.
Yeah, basically Three Exception Pro-Life...
And Josh, that is alot of... debating. Sum it up, I don't want to be reading other people debating each other for the next hour.
Yup, I'm pro life, you sound kind of discouraged about it.
-
No, just trying to sum it up. Abortion arguements are my least favorite debates. I'm glad your not pro-death. :)
-
I must say, checking General Discussion is a giant downer nowadays. It's been reduced to religious and political discussion.
-
yeay! yea doesn't sound right to me...
I don't value regular human life all that much and I certainly don't value "fetus life" or w/e...I'm also pro-death penalty, I guess...but w/e...
*shrugs*
-
I must say, checking General Discussion is a giant downer nowadays. It's been reduced to religious and political discussion.
And you wisely don't get involved. I sometimes wish I hadn't, but the urge to be heard is unfortunetely too strong for me to ignore. One of my many weaknesses, I suppose...
But hey, it is General Discussion...probably the best forum to ignore on a regular basis without feeling you're missing out on anything.
And J, that really is...huge. I found it to be kinda repetetive after 20 minutes of reading it. You make alot of valid points that I agree with, A LOT, but I found an issue to appear with the "Value of Life" argument. Every life has value, just by being alive, or else murder would be of heavy debate. How MUCH value is determined at the end of that life, however, and is a different story.
Personally I believe more in acting intelligently and responsibly more than giving the choice to act stupid and not suffer consequences, but I suppose the American way is to allow stupid people to do things to cover their ass for being stupid. Obviously this won't bring down America and make it eat itself out with the sheer stupidity of the human race.
My point is that ultimate freedom is not acheived by allowing everything. There HAS to be boundaries. I read a story in a sci-fi class (can't remember the name or author) about a public park, based in the future, where everything EXCEPT violence was allowed, 'violence' being described as 'one person causing another physical pain through action'. If such activity occurs, these bots patrolling the park would zap both, freeze them, seperate them, and unfreeze them leaving both feeling rather unpleasant.
Someone broke the bots in this park, and things went rampant. Violence ran amuk and ruined everything. It wasn't until the bots were replaced did peace and happiness finally resume.
The problem is: who are we, imperfect beings that we are, to decide what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? By simple definition, as long as we're not harming others, and we're being responsible and wise, it should be allowed and ok and supported by the government. If not, it should be intervened. That's my take...for now.
-
I think, therefore, I am. Now prove to me the same. :wink:
-
Zeality, how bout a Political/Religious Forum like OCR?
Again, it is a mistake to draw this kind of a line between the human mind and the rest of nature. Humanity is the epitome of nature, not the adversary of it. Without an external reason that demonstrates that abstaining from sex is better than the alternative— “better” according to productive calculations that represent a comprehensive understanding of human potential—choosing to have sex casually is no more degrading to the human condition than choosing to drink water casually. The act in itself means nothing. We like it, we do it. Now, sometimes these actions prove to be detrimental. I’ll bet if lemmings knew that their mass migrations would lead to their being drowned in large numbers, they would try to reform their behaviors. Can you show that casual sex is more detrimental to society than the abstention from casual sex? I say that this religious-based taboo on sex, which in effect denies us the deepest part of our nature, is at the center of a profound neurosis in human civilization. The problems that result from sex veritably pale in comparison to the problems that result from abstinence. (Or is the sum of human history not something with which you are familiar?)
To say humans are not the adversary of nature is debatable. We are the only animal organism, nay, ORGANISM, that takes advantage of nature.
Tell me a scenario where you drink water casually. Your throat may be dry, you might be thirsty after some football, and so on. Drinking water for no apparent reason isn't that smart, but its not bad like having casual sex outside of marriage. For one, sex is a big thing. Having someone naked by you, and having them enter you, or you enter them, is quite a big thing, as our intuition tells us, as due to something called decency (i know, i just found out what that was yesterday as well) we know that touching someone who is naked, and being naked publically aint too cool. Sex can lead to things like too much lust, which can lead to sexual harrasment and rape, which couldve been avoided if someone didnt wish to just have sex. Even though I dont approve of this, if someone actually did love (love?) someone when they were sixteen, then maybe they can. But foreplay first guys! Just going into a room, tearing off clothes, doggy style, and leaving aint cool, yet if you do it passionately, thats a different story. Why not find the ONE J? That way you can feel that your sex means something, and not just a way to get rid of your sperm.
And abortion, the three exception thing is teh truth. Remember House? The twelve year older who had sex? Yes, we all want sex, but no one would go that far. Boo hoo hoo. You may have some disease due to your baby (as i remember it). Oh, look, your family is crying too. What!? You told them that you wanted it! And they are still crying and feeling sorry for you! Abort the baby. Im not suprised. A 12 year older taking care of the baby is stupid, even with the gparents. And plus, yeah, it would be painful beyond belief. But does the end justify the means?
-
To say humans are not the adversary of nature is debatable. We are the only animal organism, nay, ORGANISM, that takes advantage of nature.
Your perception is too narrow. All organisms exploit the resources of their environment to sustain and perpetuate themselves. If cayotes were as smart as we are, they'd be dumping industrial waste into the water supply too. Which kinda tells you a thing or two about how smart we are. In any case, all insentient organisms act instinctively for the benefit of themselves. Whether this is to the detriment or the benefit of their broader ecosystem and the planetary biome as a whole, is irrelevant.
Meanwhile, your sexual morals are simplistic to the point of being a hindrance to your positions. I do appreciate, however, your trying to argue sociologically rather than from the religious fantasy bubble. So many meaningful debates in this country are too often debased into pointless arguments for or against some bit of scriptural dogma.
Here are some of the morals you espoused. All of these well-meaning morals are well-meaning, but they are poorly reasoned and inappropriately applied. I will speak to each of them briefly:
we know that touching someone who is naked, and being naked publically aint too cool.
Your belief that relieving the taboos on sexuality--such as being more permissive of public nudity or casual physical contact--"ain't too cool" is not an objectively true statement. It also happens to be factually incorrect. I caution that you are merely repeating a value held you heard from someone else. Where's the justification for that value?
As is the case with any form of education, when people spend their lives learning about their sexuality rather than hiding it away, their attitudes and behaviors are naturally going to be more literate on the whole than those whose morals force them to confront sexuality through a veil of ignorance. By relieving these taboos and educating children and teenagers more thoroughly in human sexuality, there is great potential for society to improve. What is "cool" is knowledgeable people leading interesting lives, and inasmuch as sexuality is a fundamental component of the human equation, we do better to embrace rather than conceal it. Just because society as a whole hasn't caught on this idea yet, has no bearing on its veracity. Cultures change more slowly than we would often prefer.
As a supplement to that, here is a Christian nudist (http://www.figleafforum.com/resources_clothing_nakedness.html) take that is favorable toward nakedness.
Sex can lead to things like too much lust, which can lead to sexual harrasment and rape, which couldve been avoided if someone didnt wish to just have sex.
I wasn't talking about this, but since you brought it up I should point out that your assumptions are faulty--again due to oversimplification more so than outright wrongness. To wit, sex crimes are not solely the function of sexual desire. Consider it like this: What causes a crime? (I'll pause while you think about it.) Now, as it so happens, the same factors that predominantly lead to crime, lead to sex crime as well. In other words, more sex crimes are the result of violent domination and physical control than sexual passion. This is the largest root of sex crimes, yet it is a dimension of sex crimes in general completely absent in your moralizing. This is an example of what I mean when I say you're treating this stuff too simplistically.
True enough, meanwhile, sexual desire itself all too often leads to sexual assaults. Being as big on women's rights as I am, I in no way want to marginalize that, and you do well to bring it up. (Actually, you would have done well to bring it up in a sexuality or crime topic, not an abortion topic, but, hey, I'm flexible. It's only fitting that this thread, which I created so that people could get all that abortion stuff off their chests without hijacking other threads, would itself be hijacked by unrelated discussion.)
Anyhow, even though you raise a good line of discussion, your moral stance and your characterization of the issue are both, again, too simple. If you set all other things to being equal, will sex itself lead to more sex crimes as you allege? That's a question that would have to be answered by a controlled research study, because I see factors that would influence it both ways. On one hand, increased inhibition leads to increased criminal behavior by some individuals who prefer to defy the inhibition. On the other hand, those who comply with it will have fewer opportunities to commit sex crimes. It's like Prohibition in the 1920s. Was more or less alcohol consumed in that era? Did alcohol-related crime in that era rise or fall? You might find the answers very interesting (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html). We can draw a relationship to sexual taboos and sex crime rates. And, certainly, alcohol is far less fundamental to human nature--and therefore far easier to inhibit--than sexuality. To put it bluntly, therefore, I will reserve final judgment pending some statistics on the matter, but my hypothesis in the meantime is that sexual taboos are playing with fire. Sexuality is too powerful an element of our identity to inhibit--so powerful, in fact, that its very overwhelming intensity is probably why we have ironically attempted to steel ourselves since the dawn of time above the its controlling might. And, as a sidenote, my "hypothesis" is historically supported in the atrocious treatment of women by religious authorities throughout the centuries.
However, all other things are not equal. Once you look at this in the context of a dynamic world, the snapshot analysis becomes entirely moot. What we'll see is that, as sexual taboos diminish, sexual education will increase (as the two are inversely proportional), and, therefore, our sexual attitudes as a society will shift with respect to time based upon all relevant factors, rather than just the dissipation of inhibition.
It's interesting. If your simplistic moral were valid, sex crime rates would be pointedly highest in places like nudist colonies, San Francisco, and, goodness knows, San Francisco-area nudist colonies. And they would be lowest in the most religiously conservative places, like, oh, Mississippi. But the facts (http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl05.xls) not only fail to corroborate such an assumption, but actually weigh in the other direction! That is, the religious conservative areas of the country endure higher rates of rape than liberal bastions where sexual behaviors are much more...well...liberal! And, if this indicates sociological fact as opposited to a statistical anomaly, then it would be powerful evidence in favor of increasing sexuality in our society.
Just going into a room, tearing off clothes, doggy style, and leaving aint cool, yet if you do it passionately, thats a different story.
This is the money quote. If you combine what I said in response to your last to moralistic claims, they would jointly apply to this. Separate the sex act from the archaic rituals of sex. That's where the solution lies. Show people that sex for pleasure is a healthy and responsible component of their sexual identity, and encourage them to embrace their sexuality rather than pray forgiveness for it in a house of worship every week. Cut away all that religious fat, and you're left with a simple truth: Casual encounters are just that: casual encounters.
Anyhow, this has been an interesting diversion from the topic of abortion. But now let's get back to that controversy that nobody can seem to get enough of: Abortion!
(Incidentally, I've already said my piece on abortion, which can be found in my second post in this topic, and I don't plan on saying anything else about it. The intensity of the abortion debate is ridiculous, and a distraction. Those who aren't willing to read my position due to its length or whatever else, are welcome not to do so, but they're not going to get any Readers Digest version from me.)
-
Quite frankly on my side.... Abortion is a no no.
It's peoples fault for having sex. They can't control themselves, they pay the consiquences. If you're that horny, slutty, lusty, desperate etc... well to bad! I'm sure there are alot of nerds out there who want to do it bad but don't. And just because you do, and might get pregnant because you're a sleaz then you fucked up. Maybe you should wait to have sex till you're older.
*Is a celebist and does not believe in love*
-
Yes, I think instead of abortions I'd much rather get behind pregnacy licences. They would be based on average intelligence of the couple, monetary income, home conditions, general health (no crack heads or people w/STDs), etc...Anyone who had children outside of this system would be punishable by....hm...death, deportation, or life in prison...Oh, and their children would be given to someone smarter than them...oh, or maybe they'd be castrated...
aw, hell...CASTRATIONS FOR ALL!!! :wink:
-
You guys get WAY too complex on this. The implications may not be simple, but the base principal is: When do you have the right to take another human life? The (fairly) simple answer: when other lives are in danger. Hence you can kill somebody that's going around with a gun randomly shooting others, or to kill somebody that is trying to kill you. Ultimately you are valuing human life itself, and trying to secure as much of it as possible, as all other "rights" are somewhat meaningless without the right to life itself.
Now the complex part about that is that you value HUMAN life. Not "quality of life", or intelligence, RACE, or other factors that you can decide to exclude others upon, but only the fact that human life itself is worth preserving. Some of course don't even agree to this point, such as supporters of suicide, euthanasia, and such, where quality of life matters to whether their life is worth preserving, and not the concept of merely being human.
But once you're at the "life" part, then the only determinant left is fairly simple: what constitutes human life? At what point do your reproductive cells (fusing with your mate's) become human life, and are no longer merely tissue? Some say conception, others say when neural activity occurs, still others say when the baby is viable outside the mother's womb, and others say not until the birth itself has the organism passed into "humanity".
And to me that's the only part worth talking about with Abortion. My religion has a very strict say on what is human, but from a scientific perspective, there are arguments that make sense. From such a perspective, neural activity is where I'd fall, as it seems the most reasonable. Viability is NOT, as that varies according to technology level, and even spot in the world. Basically that measure would say a fetus is human earlier in the developed world than it is human in the 3rd-world, which seems rather non-sensical. I would be more for a measure where the organism themselves through their objective traits (not technology-dependant) signals when it has made the transition into humanity, rather than something that changes depending on technology level.
But if the valuation of human life itself isn't there, then the rest of the conversation really does become trivial. What are you even arguing for anyways then?
And ya, you should make a political forum. General is getting really polluted with that, and IMO it should be seperate.
-
(Note to Compendium readers: My original post in this GameFAQs thread referenced a link, now lost, to a news story about a teenage woman in Texas who got pregnant. She got scared, and since Texas law makes it very hard for someone like her to get an anonymous abortion, she panicked and asked her boyfriend to kick her in the stomach so that she would miscarry. He did, the baby died, and based on Texas anti-abortion laws the guy was sentenced to 40 years in prison.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING POST WILL MAKE ME SOUND LIKE A HEARTLESS BASTARD. IF YOU CANNOT DEAL WITH THAT, SKIP THIS POST
Soooo we have pair of people so immature and unable to cope with consequences of their actions that kicking a pregant woman in the stomach is the best solution they could possibly come up with? Because 'she got scared'? And I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? Where was this fear when before the act of sex? Did the possibility of pregnancy occur to them before they had sex? We're they ignorant to the risk? Sounds to me like they just didn’t want to own up to their actions. Actions have consequences. If he didn’t want to be in jail for 40 years, ‘fessing up to what was done and getting her a legal abortion was an option. Or helping her carry to term and then give the baby up was also a choice. They chose the ‘easy’ way out. Now he has to pay for it.
Got what they deserved.
-
Silvercry you heartless bastard! :wink:
Excellent third choice Josh. Any Simpsons quote is alright by me.
I say abortion whenever you want. I don't see the purpose of saying oh it's okay then but not there. It is denial of life regardless of time.
-
Abortion introduces a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the developing fetus.
Humans beings have rights in our society because we are capable of reason or cognition, as Josh puts it. We extend these rights to all humans, even those with severe mental disability. At some scientifically definable point in human gestation, the fetus will develop higher mental functions, such that it ought to have rights.
A one day old human embryo may be alive; but, like a brain-dead adult, it is not a person. Cutting off life-support for such an individual does not bring up any moral quandaries, as far as I'm concerned. I do not think the idea of potential human life is relevant. Any unfertilized human ovum or sperm has the potential to become a person.
However, after the onset of cognition, the fetus becomes a person with equal rights with the mother. The rights of an individual only extend so far as they do not infringe on the rights of another. For example, if a person had a conjoined twin who could not survive separately, he should not be allowed to have his twin surgically removed out of convenience. This puts an unfortunate limitation on the freedom of the mother, but I see that as an unavoidable consequence of reality. At this point, abortion should only be allowed if it is a medically necessity.
Josh's argument that the mother is more worthy than the fetus doesn't hold water, in my oppinion. Humans have equal rights. The most severely mentally impaired person has the same rights as anyone else. During medical treatment, one tries to save the patient with the greatest chance of survival, not the one who has experienced more or deserves to live more.
I think abortion will continue to be a contentious issue in our society until a technological solution is reached, such as effortless, 100% effective contraception and the ability to safely extract and sustain a human embryo outside the womb at any stage of pregnancy.
-
Exactly. A one week old baby is as "brain dead" as a fetus. Now, if you had children, then you figured out that your "boyfriend" just ran away, according to abortion logic, you could leave it to die. In theory. Of course, then the baby would be out of the womb. And therefore, practically, would be alive. See how I contradict myseld, while making a valid point?
Plus, is it then right to pull the plug on a "vegetable" who is eating up your money? In abortionist theory, yes, it is. In reality, it's not.
You realize that all this is going to become is a "what is life" thread
-
You realize that all this is going to become is a "what is life" thread
Hence why I already went there at the end of the previous page. It almost always comes down to that. Either that, or quality of life.
-
This is, more than likely, one of the few topics of debate that you'll find me in agreeance with your statements, Josh.
-
Exactly. A one week old baby is as "brain dead" as a fetus. Now, if you had children, then you figured out that your "boyfriend" just ran away, according to abortion logic, you could leave it to die. In theory. Of course, then the baby would be out of the womb. And therefore, practically, would be alive. See how I contradict myseld, while making a valid point?
Plus, is it then right to pull the plug on a "vegetable" who is eating up your money? In abortionist theory, yes, it is. In reality, it's not.
You realize that all this is going to become is a "what is life" thread
Bullshit. A one week old baby can recognize it's mother's face. A fetus can't recognize anything.
-
Because 'she got scared'? And I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?
It's up to you to feel sorry for them or not. By laughing off the 40-year prison sentence as just deserts for some stupid kid who was trying to help fix a problem he had a hand in causing, you're certainly in line with the thinking of many Texans, as well as the Texas legislature, and the judge who heard the case. "Heartless bastard" is right, but your unapologetic refusal to sympathize isn't the issue. Justice isn't the function of a public opinion poll, fortunately. No, at issue is this:
A more equitable society would help people from making bad decisions in the first place. This tragedy could have been prevented.
If Texan culture wasn't so vehemently hateful of everything encompassed in the female gender, and therefore wasn't so aghast at premarital sex and pregnancy out of wedlock, this young woman would never have freaked out, and perhaps could have accepted her pregnancy in peace. But instead she got scared and wanted an abortion. Even then, the situation could have been salvaged if only she had had easy access to abortion services. It would have made all the difference. But she did not have even that last recourse. Instead, when society had failed her twice, she took matters into her own hands, and, with the ignorance of age and the rashness of fear, asked her boyfriend to assault her in hopes that the baby would miscarry. He dutifully obliged--just as ignorant as she, but well-meaning--for there was no social mechanism and no safety valve, no authority of any kind to give him the most important advice of his life. No, in Texas the only thing the authorities are good for is prosecuting children and locking them up for 40 years because their own culture is too damned inept to raise children responsibly. God bless America, eh?
This young man ruined his life--trying to do good. It is never an occasion to gloat when somebody meets a fate like that. Do you understand what I mean?
But what makes this all so much worse, so much more than a freak tragedy, is that this was no accident at all. It was the product of a sick culture. It could have been prevented. By forcing two young and sexually curious teenagers not to have sex? No. By helping them understand their sexuality, and offering them good counsel. We all have a long way to go in reaching that better tomorrow, but Texas has a particularly tough road ahead. Bloody disgrace of a state, if you ask me.
-
Well, with the fetus come other things. Like the soul. If you're Christian, who knows when you gain a soul. I'd say that the moment that the two things fuse, that’s when it's created. But there are other religions that say that you only gain a soul by suffering in life Oo
You're just sleeping as a fetus. The only reason why you would say a Fetus is brain-dead is because it's irresponsive. Well, who would be? It's not conscious. MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN BECOME CONCIOUS TILL THEY'RE 5. I was blessed with being conscious of everything since I was 1 year and 9 months old. Would a fetus that is maybe 4 months old have the same equal rights as a one-day-old baby, even though the 6 months old fetus might not be conscious yet because the chemicals in the brain haven't kicked in?
Abortion should not be allowed. Even if the mother is having complications and could die giving the baby... I know I may sound heartless, but that's how it worked back before we had medicines.
Plus, why are those science jerks being such dick heads and rejecting stem cell research because it involves breaking apart a fetus if they support abortions?
And as for Sexual Education. I find that whole thing about "Teens who have sex and get pregnant not knowing the consequences" to be like an urban myth. It's bullshit. Of course you know you'll have a baby. Maybe if a 5-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl did it, that'd be a different story. But when you're 13/14, you should already know how a baby is formed. If not, you should be castrated like V_T said :P
As Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" said, Every Spem is Sacred.
-
I'm all for post-birth abortions...And no "abortions of wit" jokes!
Birth Licence people! It makes TOO much sense!
-
Preventable tragedy? Oh, absolutely. At several key points:
POINT ONE: SOCIETY
I'll be the first to admit that Texas it perhaps the most backwards state in the union, a fact I learned well growing up as one of very few blacks in a town of around 10,000 people whose largest building was a Baptist church. Society did fail them long before they were even born. So now its up to --
POINT TWO: PARENTS
It is not up to society to raise my daughter: that’s my job. And likewise with the parents of these two teens. One has to wonder what kind of relationship they had with their parents if they were too scared to come to them for help. Typically, however, the fear is often worse than the reality. When the time comes, I know that I will sit down with my child, and have a honest, frank discussion about the facts of life. Though I imagine she'd rather talk about some things with her mother, the end result would be the same: She will be armed with the knowledge to make an informed choice when -- not if -- the opportunity to have sex arises. To include the consequences of doing it or not. Personally I'm keeping my fingers crossed that she'll wind up being gay. Sure would make my life easier. And yes, that was a joke.
POINT THREE: THE ACT OF HAVING SEX
I cannot be the only person on this forum who realizes the only reason we even have the ability to have sex is to produce offspring. Yeah, it feels damn good, and yeah it used for all sorts of viable reasons, but the only reason its there is to continue the species. Did these kids know this going in? Did they take adequate measures to protect themselves? Did they wonder: what will I/she/we do if I/she/we gets knocked up? If you are not mature enough to ask yourself this question -- even if your answer is abortion -- then you are not mature enough to be having sex, whatever your body is telling you.
POINT FOUR: ACCEPTING THE CONSEQUNCES
As I see it. there are 3 things a woman can due with an unwanted pregnancy: abort, carry to term and raise (with the aid of the father), or carry to term and give up for an adoption. What these three things have in common is in each, the mother has accepted the consequences of her actions. Though I may consider an abortion as the single greatest cop-out a human being can commit, that is just my opinion of this viable option. It still an option, and should remain such, right-wing nut jobs be damned.
All three of these options were available to this couple. The fact that she could not abort anonymously is irrelevant. That's just a way to skirt responsibility. In her eyes, she messed up. Well then, fess up. If you're woman enough to have sex, you should be woman enough to own up to your actions. The law may be unfair, but until it is changed, it is the law. If abortion is your choice, then find out what needs to be done to have a medically safe one and then do it. If you don’t want to go though that, refer to point three. That was the time to make that choice.
Yes this was preventable. At no fewer than 4 key points. Texas must take the hit for the first one, but the remaining three are all up to the people in question. When people make bad choices, and then suffer the consequences, I feel no sympathy for them. I've made plenty of mistakes as a teen, some of them follow me to this day. I expect no sympathy. My choice, my consequence, my problem. And that is as it should be.
-
Well, with the fetus come other things. Like the soul. If you're Christian, who knows when you gain a soul. I'd say that the moment that the two things fuse, that’s when it's created. But there are other religions that say that you only gain a soul by suffering in life Oo
You're just sleeping as a fetus. The only reason why you would say a Fetus is brain-dead is because it's irresponsive. Well, who would be? It's not conscious. MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN BECOME CONCIOUS TILL THEY'RE 5. I was blessed with being conscious of everything since I was 1 year and 9 months old. Would a fetus that is maybe 4 months old have the same equal rights as a one-day-old baby, even though the 6 months old fetus might not be conscious yet because the chemicals in the brain haven't kicked in?
Abortion should not be allowed. Even if the mother is having complications and could die giving the baby... I know I may sound heartless, but that's how it worked back before we had medicines.Plus, why are those science jerks being such dick heads and rejecting stem cell research because it involves breaking apart a fetus if they support abortions?
And as for Sexual Education. I find that whole thing about "Teens who have sex and get pregnant not knowing the consequences" to be like an urban myth. It's bullshit. Of course you know you'll have a baby. Maybe if a 5-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl did it, that'd be a different story. But when you're 13/14, you should already know how a baby is formed. If not, you should be castrated like V_T said :P
As Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" said, Every Spem is Sacred.
Hubba whubba? So laws shouldn't change with improving medicinal technology? That makes absolutely no sense at all...ever. That would be like keeping hanging a viable death penalty when there are much more sucessful and painless ways to do it.
-
That would be like keeping hanging a viable death penalty when there are much more sucessful and painless ways to do it.
Just to add another level of de-rail, why is a painless death penalty important? Why NOT have it painful?
(P.S. I'm actually against the death penalty, but it's still a fair question)
-
Well, with the fetus come other things. Like the soul. If you're Christian, who knows when you gain a soul. I'd say that the moment that the two things fuse, that’s when it's created. But there are other religions that say that you only gain a soul by suffering in life Oo
Irrelevant.
You're just sleeping as a fetus. The only reason why you would say a Fetus is brain-dead is because it's irresponsive. Well, who would be? It's not conscious. MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN BECOME CONCIOUS TILL THEY'RE 5. I was blessed with being conscious of everything since I was 1 year and 9 months old. Would a fetus that is maybe 4 months old have the same equal rights as a one-day-old baby, even though the 6 months old fetus might not be conscious yet because the chemicals in the brain haven't kicked in?
Before the brain is developed (or even present) you aren't sleeping. You have no possibility of any sort of concious or unconcious experience. If a fetus is aborted, it feels no pain, no sense of loss, no warmth, no cold, nothing. No conciousness to change.
Abortion should not be allowed. Even if the mother is having complications and could die giving the baby... I know I may sound heartless, but that's how it worked back before we had medicines.
Plus, why are those science jerks being such dick heads and rejecting stem cell research because it involves breaking apart a fetus if they support abortions?
Scientists are the ones who are for stem cell research! Did you pay attention (assuming you live in the U.S.) to that whole debacle? It was President Bush, who hates science. Scientists are chomping at the bit for funding, because stem cell reasearch has so much potential to do good in this world. That's why it's so disgusting that polititans are getting involved. Of course, they shouldn't be involved in science anyway, but that's a seperate discussion.
And as for Sexual Education. I find that whole thing about "Teens who have sex and get pregnant not knowing the consequences" to be like an urban myth. It's bullshit. Of course you know you'll have a baby. Maybe if a 5-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl did it, that'd be a different story. But when you're 13/14, you should already know how a baby is formed. If not, you should be castrated like V_T said :P
Can't really argue that. I can't imagine that anyone can make it to puberty without learning that babies come from sex, and more specifically, the sperm fusing with the egg. Condoms aren't hard to find people.
-
Hmm, There were actually politicians here and some scientists (Australia) who liked the idea of abortions, yet were against the research of stem cells. That's why in December, there will be another meeting to try and unban the research.
-
Hmm, There were actually politicians here and some scientists (Australia) who liked the idea of abortions, yet were against the research of stem cells. That's why in December, there will be another meeting to try and unban the research.
Scientists? Really? They should be ashamed of themselves. I grant that stem cells may not be able to live up to all the hype, at least not for many years to come, but that's not a reason to abandon a life saving line of research.
-
Ah, yes, stem-cell research. Thousands of frozen embryos just sitting there in countless fertility clinics all across the country, all of them earmarked for destruction. Their parents already have the child/children they wanted, thanks to in-vitro fertilization. They have signed off their claims to the extra embryos.
And we can’t use them for stem-cell research because why exactly?
It’s a no brainer as far as I can see. We can destroy these embryos in a lab, perhaps leading to a discovery that leads to a discovery that leads to a discovery, etc, etc, and in 100 years, people will be talking about diabetes in the past tense, like we do with polio today.
Or, we can destroy them in an incinerator – and get nothing out of it whatsoever.
Seems simple, huh?
-
Nearest I can tell, to be against using that, one has to actively be against humanity, and pro unneccisary human suffering. Or such a fanatical luddite, that the thought of any use of science whatsoever is more offensive than the thought of countless people suffering for no reason. Either way, I didn't vote for him.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm not brandishing a label on the whole group-- I've met quite a few clear thinking religious people.
With that in mind, the majority of religious groups piss me off with the sheer arrogance and ignorance that these groups use to represent themselves.
I ask a question; I do not want a nine paragraph essay on the subject. Keep it simple. The question I ask is this: what right do you have to make decisions for other people? Who are you to judge your own God's will? Does he come down and talk to you? Are you a connoisseur of all things unsavory? A judge on humanity?
The whole "we know exactly what God wants" thing is what turned me off of religion in the first place. It's just hellfire, damnation, scorn. Never any help for people like these two teens, and I'm getting tired of it.
Bah, there I went. Time for some Ragnarok. I'm not really into this philosophical debate as to why it's okay to essentially damn this girl's life to nothingness to have a child she will grow to despise for ruining her life. Sure, she has nobody to blame but herself. Or does she? Do we know if this girl had any help? Any counseling on safer sex? I can't recall who it was that said it, but it was a powerful parallel, none-the-less:
You don't teach your kid to drive a car by sending him to his room.
-
Bah, there I went. Time for some Ragnarok. I'm not really into this philosophical debate as to why it's okay to essentially damn this girl's life to nothingness to have a child she will grow to despise for ruining her life.
Damn, you’re right. If only there was some kind of system in place where someone could – I dunno – give an unwanted child over to someone who wanted one. Perhaps someone or a couple who couldn’t have kids of their own. Yeah, that would be sweet. Mom would be out of things for 9mths and deal with some pain, and then free to live her own life, perhaps a bit wiser for the journey. The people who take the child off her hands would be ecstatic to finally have a child to love. The child itself would live.
Too bad nothing like that exits though. Oh well. Next abortion, please.
-
One day, they will invent virtual sex :D That way no more horny teens have to do it for real and suffer the consiquences :D
-
Bah, there I went. Time for some Ragnarok. I'm not really into this philosophical debate as to why it's okay to essentially damn this girl's life to nothingness to have a child she will grow to despise for ruining her life.
Damn, you’re right. If only there was some kind of system in place where someone could – I dunno – give an unwanted child over to someone who wanted one. Perhaps someone or a couple who couldn’t have kids of their own. Yeah, that would be sweet. Mom would be out of things for 9mths and deal with some pain, and then free to live her own life, perhaps a bit wiser for the journey. The people who take the child off her hands would be ecstatic to finally have a child to love. The child itself would live.
Too bad nothing like that exits though. Oh well. Next abortion, please.
Yeah, you should probably read statistics about adoption before popping shit off. Thanks.
Like, you know, how there are already children waiting in line (http://www.openadoptions.com/) to be adopted by a loving family. Let's not forget that humanity is already stretching its natural tolerance. Our planet can hardly support the 6 billion we already have.
Where the fuck is your God now?
-
I never claimed that ‘God’ or any religious teaching was the reason behind my opinion of abortion. Never. Not once.
Short of limiting the of children a family can have (a’la Enders Game) or systematically killing off people to keep the population down (a’la – um – that episode of Sliders I saw once) there is no way to keep the effectively control the population, outside of conspiracy theories which don’t work. I can only assume that you must be against stem-cell research then, since it has the potential to eliminate so many things that kill us, which keeps the population down.
And just because adoption is harder, takes longer, and is more work, does not eliminate it a viable option.
-
I never claimed that ‘God’ or any religious teaching was the reason behind my opinion of abortion. Never. Not once.
Short of limiting the of children a family can have (a’la Enders Game) or systematically killing off people to keep the population down (a’la – um – that episode of Sliders I saw once) there is no way to keep the effectively control the population, outside of conspiracy theories which don’t work. I can only assume that you must be against stem-cell research then, since it has the potential to eliminate so many things that kill us, which keeps the population down.
And just because adoption is harder, takes longer, and is more work, does not eliminate it a viable option.
Against Stem Cell research? No sir.
However, your argument for adoption does not hold water. I've already pointed out two things that make such an argument like yours so: There are already children waiting, and limited numbers of families willing to adopt.
Humanity was last surveyed as standing at roughly 6,000,000,000~. The cases of overcrowding have always led to an increase in import, and a decrease in export (which is a bad thing for a country. Eventually, you've spent more than your country actually has in Gold and Silver reserves. You're fucked.) Urban areas experience immense over-crowding. The value of your currency shoots down to about 3 cents USD. Trades with other countries are now impossible. Economy stagnates; you lose your job. Eventually, tired of the overcrowding in urban areas, you move to rural districts of your country. Restart at step one.
Let us observe one simple fact: Fetuses are not capable of any thought processes. They are completely dependent upon their mothers for sustenance. Is that really living? Can we associate a fetus with having a "soul" or a personality? Now, let us compare that to our mother who has just been knocked up, perhaps through rape, perhaps through consensual sex in which the condom failed. Whose life is more valuable? The practically non-living fetus, or the mother who already has two children and will lose her job if she does not accept an abortion?
It's not a startling leap of logic to side with the mother in this case, really. You can relate with the mother; you're not even sure if the fetus is doing anything at all. It certainly isn't thinking; it isn't supporting itself. It displays no characteristics of living.
The roadblock here is that people believe that it is morally wrong to murder another human being (myself included, do not get me wrong). But can the fetus really be considered human at that point in its development? It does have the genes of a homo sapien sapien, but that isn't the definition of "human" I'm going by; is this unborn fetus really displaying human characteristics? I do not believe so. A baby acts as a leech upon its mother until it is approximately 2 years old, in which case it is capable of feeding itself. While the baby IS distinctly human in every other regard, a fetus is not.
And I do apologize for my harsh demeanor. I simply felt that your spiel was completely unnecessary, if only because of its offensive connotations.
-
Overpopulation doesn't need to be the way it is. People need to move out of crowded areas. There's so much liveable earth out there that isn't occupied, and here we are complaining about it. I dunno, I myself see an obvious answer...keep population control by different means, if you must. If we're actually running out of space on the entire planet and oxygen is being consumed faster than replaced, resources are vanishing to the point of almost being completely gone (and they're in a frightening short supply as is), then it's a big problem that takes extreme measures to solve. Though really, by that point, we'll hopefully have a way to live off the resources of outside planets/moons, or our race as a whole is truly fucked.
In all honesty, however, I can't really say anything about overpopulation. All I know is we have tons of people living too close together, and we as the entire human race don't like it and wanna change it.
Exodus states his argument rather well, in my opinion. The only problem I personally have with it is the basis of letting the woman go with trying to enjoy sex while risking the natural consequences. If you're not willing to take the chance that you can become pregnant with the person you're sleeping with, then dammit, don't do it! Still, I suppose it's the rights of the women that are more respectable than upholding responsibility with the citizens of America. I just hope that this kind of action is heavily frowned upon in our society if it becomes legal.
As for stem-cell research, I'm all for it, especially if they've already got fetuses. That's a no-brainer. But I'm not against it anyway, I find it rather worth it. It's not like abortion, where you could call it murder and simply letting the woman get away with being irresponsible (typically). These fetuses are being put to good use. Very good use.
-
Do you know the consequences of using "all of that extra land"?
And I have stated only two instances of sexual intercourse leading to the birth of a child, both of which were rape and the ever-present risk of a condom not doing as it should.
Which leads me to my next point: If "safer sex" policies were enforced, rather than the "no sex" policies we currently have set up, the problems we currently have would be nonexistent in developed countries. You would still have the occasional condom failure or rape, which would be excused. However, if "safer sex" policies were to be enforced, there wouldn't be a problem with child bearing in any sense of the word; it would be a choice to have a child if you refuse to wear a condom or other flow-stopping appendages.
Now, in the event that the woman did not practice any safe sex maneuvers and attempts to have an abortion, I would agree that it was immature of the woman in question; however, I firmly believe that fetuses are not humans in the same sense as you or I are humans. You and I would be capable of self-sustainability and rational-- hell, any kind of thought. A fetus is not capable of such "necessities of life," shall we say.
-
Society is at loss here.
Remeber back in the 10th century when there was no such thing as teenage rebellion. No teen sex. People didn't go around having sex for fun. Now it has become such a thing. And back then, they couldn't have abortions. People lived it out. And now, in a better and modern world, selfish couples choose to abort their creation because they were irresponsible.
If God created humans in his image, he must be very upset over what people who have abortions are doing. He created us... He might have done a bad job because Adam and Eve ate the apple and didn't listen to him, but he let them live. Now look at people who have abortions. They kill off their creation. If you create something, it's your fault. It's you're accident or your consiquence. You should not have the right to destroy that creation, as the fetus should hold it's own life from that moment.
I don't see how you can call a Fetus a leech. It's the mothers body that is letting the fetus "leech". It's natural for it to happen, otherwise we wouldn't reproduce this way.
Everyone thinks of the Fetus as only potential? Why? I could say a baby is potential, because it could die before it does anything great. Everyone is potential. You, I, everyone was a fetus once. Remember that. Would you be happy now looking back at your parents and thinking that they held your life at a knifes edge? I have friend's who's parents said they were accidents, that they were thinking of abortions. But they let them live. A Fetus should have equal rights as any human being. I'd rather say that people like Saddam Hussein and George Bush don't deserve to live, and a Fetus should. A fetus can become many things, but a grown up human being cannot. Instead of being aborted, a fetus can compensate for another child who was born who is disabled or isn't educated. I remember reading about a woman who had scarlet fever. She couldn't hear or see, and i think talk either. People thought that she was brain dead and her parents wanted to kill her after she was born. But she displayed that she was still able to be taught. She had a tutor who would press her lips against hers and mime the letters of the alphabet. And this girl finally started to talk, yet she could never see or hear. She ended up writing very famous books. Yet I still forgot her name >.<
I'd actually rather say that a Fetus is more valuable than a real living human being. Especially all those sinners in the world.......
-
Having read that, it becomes very apparent to me that you have read none of my refutations at all; I have maintained thoroughly my beliefs. Would you like to know, my dear friend Zaper, why there was no "teen sex" in the 19th century? Because it was acceptable for girls to marry at 15 years of age. However, as society has progressed (regressed, rather. It continues its boorish climb up a mountain of seeming infinity) the age of consent has risen considerably.
I honestly can't see why, in light of all our discoveries-- Electricity, the atom, radiowaves, computers, genetic engineering, cloning, etc-- people continue to blindly follow in faith of a deity.
Maybe if God taps me on my shoulder or something, I'll believe in the things IDiots spout. Until then, I'm getting extremely sick of religionists maintaining that "while faith may have no backing, neither does science," when science is based on nothing but facts and irrefutable evidence.
-
Also, back then in alot of Christian-based societies, sex outside of marriage was punishable by death. Alot of motivation not to 'fuck around'.
-
Exodus.... I'm not a friend of the bible. I think half of it is a load of rubbish. I cant stand the vadicant with the Pope thinking he's so great, and I can't stand all those people who worship the Pope and see him as a god himself.
Look at all the inventions that we have, the bible could never have dreamed them up. I mean, they said that science was a blasphomy. What those idiots didn't realise is that anything that is allowed to happen is allowed by God. There's a passage in the bible that says that only with God's permission are things invented/discovered.
Maybe because I don't follow the Bible directly, I'm not Christian. But I'd like to think so because I still believe in God. And I believe in Reincarnation :D
-
Zaper lives in Australia, and the scientists here in Australia don't count for much. Plus, some scientists have their own morals you realize.
Eriol youre an idiot. Having a painful death penalty could ultimately make you worse then them. First, if you killed someone for some reason (stole money, killed your wife...) yet the gov forces you to die, then who is worse? Well, it depends on how many you killed. Plus, the point of death penalty is to get rid of you, not really punish you.
Silvercry, ask your wife, if she had a boyfriend and he pregnated her, what would she do if she didn't want it. We need a womens point of view here people, and the only female I can think if is Dragoness.
-
I only have a second, so I must be swift:
Exodus: Scores of children are adopted everyday. Newborns have a better chance of being adopted instantly, before they even leave the hospital. I cannot tell you the number of times I watched people I know chose adoption over abortion, and the process was complete no longer then two days after birth. By your logic, they should of had to wait until all the kids ahead of them were adopted. Since I know this not to be true, your point is proven moot. Yes there will always be more kids looking for parents then there are parents looking for kids. That does not mean its not an option. If America would get its head out of its ass and let homosexual couples adopt, that would open up a whole lot more homes.
Population control through abortion? Good luck with that.
I'm not sure what you mean by safer sex "polices". When I took sex ed, they told me all about condoms, pills, shots, spermincide, foams, etc, etc. The main thing I got out of that is none of them are 100% effective. I agree that teaching abstinence only is wrong way to go. But that doesn’t change the fact that if your trying not to have kids, not having sex is the best option
Zaperking: I challenge you to leave God out of your arguments. Deal in facts, not faith.
Burning Zeppelin: I cant ask my wife that question right now, but I already know the answer, as I was her first boyfriend (we are high school sweethearts). Unless she was raped, it wouldn’t have happened, because she did not believe in having sex before marriage. See how that works?
Must go. Long day ahead of me.
-
Adoption really is a special thing that needs more support. Personally I'm still not sure how I feel about gay marriage and all that...I'm still trying to work that out with myself, including gay adoptions.
Anyway I could've answered your question, BZ. I have a mom, three sisters, and 11 aunts, all of whom wouldn't personally abort, though some (being liberal) are pro-choice, while the others (being conservative) are pro-choice, but anti-abortion (don't ask me how that works...haha).
(Oh, and none of my extended family are Mormon, in case you're wondering)
-
I only have a second, so I must be swift:
Exodus: Scores of children are adopted everyday. Newborns have a better chance of being adopted instantly, before they even leave the hospital. I cannot tell you the number of times I watched people I know chose adoption over abortion, and the process was complete no longer then two days after birth. By your logic, they should of had to wait until all the kids ahead of them were adopted. Since I know this not to be true, your point is proven moot. Yes there will always be more kids looking for parents then there are parents looking for kids. That does not mean its not an option. If America would get its head out of its ass and let homosexual couples adopt, that would open up a whole lot more homes.
Population control through abortion? Good luck with that.
I'm not sure what you mean by safer sex "polices". When I took sex ed, they told me all about condoms, pills, shots, spermincide, foams, etc, etc. The main thing I got out of that is none of them are 100% effective. I agree that teaching abstinence only is wrong way to go. But that doesn’t change the fact that if your trying not to have kids, not having sex is the best option
No, my point is not moot. There are more children than there are adults. Therefore, there are fewer people willing to adopt than there are children waiting to be adopted. Thus, you have a surplus of children, and while in most cases, a surplus would be a good thing, it isn't a good thing when the surplus continues to rise, and when said rising creates opposition for other children.
These are children we're talking about. They've waited long enough for a family. Why should an unborn, unhuman fetus be given presidence over a child waiting to go somewhere in the world?
And shame on you for suggesting that people should refrain from having sex. What you have just implied is that you believe that people should not be given the choice to have consensual, perfectly legal sex. Condoms exist specifically for this purpose, and I don't see why you feel you have the right to pass judgement on these people.
Now, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I supported population control through abortion, since I never stated anything of the sort. I simply don't believe that a fetus should be allowed to develop any further, if the mother so chooses, and I do not believe that adoption is a viable option, AT THIS TIME, due to the extreme stress on the adoption system. Adoptions happen everyday? That's true. But there are more orphans created every day. If these fetuses were given the chance to develop into humans, adopting parents would be more willing to take the baby over the child who has been waiting for four years.
I've stated my stance before; you continue to dodge the issue I'm throwing out. Fetuses do not fit into any of the categories of life:
1. Self-sustainability
2. Sentience
3. Perseverance (the will to live)
It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it". Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?
Get off your high horse, fellow; it isn't your call.
-
It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it". Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?
Now we come to the part, whether there is something called life at all. Is a fetus living, or is it just potential. An incomplete house is still a house per se, but not a home. Just like how an unborn fetus is not alive (supposedly) but is still human. Now that home, which someone would live in, is blocking a potential highway. Now, would it be right to knock down the incomplete house for the highway. That highway would let people have an easier route, but the people who own the house don't want to, because it looks upon a beautiful view and next to transport. OK, I might not be making sense, but it IS connected.
-
It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it". Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?
Now we come to the part, whether there is something called life at all. Is a fetus living, or is it just potential. An incomplete house is still a house per se, but not a home. Just like how an unborn fetus is not alive (supposedly) but is still human. Now that home, which someone would live in, is blocking a potential highway. Now, would it be right to knock down the incomplete house for the highway. That highway would let people have an easier route, but the people who own the house don't want to, because it looks upon a beautiful view and next to transport. OK, I might not be making sense, but it IS connected.
I disagree. An unborn fetus is alive from the moment of conception, but it is not human until it is sentient. That is why I support the right to abortion up until that point. We all know that we have to kill to survive, and it's been shown that human DNA alone does not a human make. A bold claim, I realize, but I can back it up with the odd case of Henrietta Lacks:
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html
-
Isn't it interesting that the same right-wing fanatic, in his or her opposition to abortion on the basis of destroying "human life," has no scruples whatsoever about supporting measures to cut medical benefits and other social assistance programs. The embryonic clump of dividing cells so vigorously championed as a human being by the religious right--unlike the many sentient, functional humans who will die deprived of medical care (not to mention food and shelter against inclement weather)--has no sentience, no experiences, no consciousness, no arms, legs, dreams, gender, affective capacity, or established family relationships. It is also interesting to note that a large percentage of children from unwanted pregnancies grow up to become impoverished, ill-educated people whose ability to adequately provide for themselves and their children with the bare necessities of life is so sorely limited that the cutting of social services is tantamount to killing these people off, in a prolonged and agonizing way, while dragging on society at every step. Cutting health care, or providing abortion: Which one is really murder?
In case you think I'm just making this stuff up, have a look (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110300999.html?nav=hcmodule) at the Republican "culture of life" in its most brutal form:
The Senate approved sweeping deficit-reduction legislation last night that would save about $35 billion over the next five years by cutting federal spending on prescription drugs, agriculture supports and student loans, while clamping down on fraud in the Medicaid program. [...]
The focus now shifts to the House, where the Budget Committee voted 21 to 16 yesterday to approve a more extensive bill saving nearly $54 billion through 2010 with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, agriculture subsidies and child support enforcement. The House measure would allow states to impose premiums and co-payments on poor Medicaid recipients for the first time.
And guess what item is scheduled to be taken up for debate in the House very soon after this vote? A $70 billion tax cut! But...it's a tax cut for the poor, right? Yeah, right. And I'm the tooth fairy.
My position is a mirror opposite of the nightmarish GOP belief. In opposing abortion and opposing social infrastructure, Republicans want to oppress women and murder the poor. I want exactly the opposite: I want everybody to have the same chance to succeed as our society is able to provide to the most well-to-do among us. I want women to be as free as I am, and I want society to protect rather than destroy the weakest among us.
I was doing some data entry this past week for an organization that helps poor folks get health insurance. The company had sent out comment cards for people to advise the governor about her low-income health care plans. I got to type these comments up as they came back. Nearly all of them came from people across the state who had fallen through just about every societal crack I could think of, and a few I hadn't, or from those people who sympathize with the plight of the uninsured. By and large these were the pleas of hardworking people or retired seniors who can't make it in our failed health care system because they don't have enough money for health insurance. These folks, without the low-income insurance programs in Washington State, would have to go without health care entirely. Furthermore, by not treating their ailments, their sicknesses become much worse, and, before dying early at the hands of treatable sicknesses, they eventually have no choice but to seek emergency care, which at that point can be expensive enough to bankrupt even an affluent middle-class family. So many of the comments I typed in fell into just three categories:
- Health care is a human right.
- Many hardworking or retired people cannot afford health care.
- A lack of health insurance costs society more in the long run.[/list:u]All undeniably true. But every once in a while, this flood of pleas for the (Democratic) governor to honor her campaign promise to expand basic health care services would be interspersed by a mean-spirited Republican who whined about the tax burden or ridiculed the integrity of the governor. Juxtaposed with the pleas of so many disenfranchised people, these hateful remarks made them look exactly as rotten as they truly are. But, if you will permit me an example to connect to the point of this post, I was surprised to see that, of the unflattering comments that came back to us--again, mostly from the Republican east of the state--the majority were full of hate for illegal immigrants, who they believe to be a drain on the health care system for such villainous reasons as they can walk into an emergy room without a dollar to their name and still be treated. So here's my point, expressed in the form of a hypothetic exchange with a GOP minion:
GOP: I hate illegal immigrants. I pay taxes and they don't. Why should they receive even the shittiest health care?
Josh: Most illegal immigrants do pay taxes. These are withheld from their wages by their employers automatically. And even though many of these people live below the poverty line and would thus be eligible for a tax refund, because they are illegal immigrants, they cannot file tax returns each year, and thus are ineligible to reclaim anything due them. This constitutes an important revenue stream for the government. The least we can do is offer basic health care to anyone within our borders.
GOP: They came here illegally. They don't deserve anything.
Josh: So we should just let them die, then? Even though we can prevent this by paying a few dollars a month in additional taxes?
GOP: Yep.[/list:u]I'll bet you thought I was just being rhetorical when I said Republicans support murder. But they really do. That's the sort of thing I was reading on the comment cards from actual people in my state--a state much more liberal than, say, Texas. It just goes to show how morally bankrupt the Republican Party truly is. And don't think I'm not going to exempt any individual who supports this party: If you are against health care for the poorest people in our society, you are in favor of murder. And if you take this position because you don't like paying taxes, you are supporting murder for the purpose of satisfying your own greed.
The main purpose of this post is to highly the lack of credibility of Republicans who oppose abortion on the grounds that it is murder, but then turn around and support real murder by opposing social spending. However, there are any number of additional lessons to be taken from this. I think the most interesting of them is that making abortion less accessible increases the burden on our social infrastructure by bringing more "wretched indigents" into the world.
What do we have here? We have that the unborn are either not human at all, or are so marginally human as to make the distinction arbitrary. We have that the Republicans are hypocrites in opposing abortion on the grounds that it is murder--(The real reason they oppose abortion is due to any combination of personal, institutional, or latent sexism against women.)--even though their political ideology supports murder anyway. (And, in addition to GOP domestic policies, do I even need to get into our administration's foreign policy?) We have that the Republicans are greedy and want to save themselves money by cutting social services, even though by denying the sick access to basic health coverage, we cost society more in the long run when those sicknesses grow worse. Simply put, we have that the Republicans are murderous, lying, self-deluded, sexist, hypocritical, greedy fools.
If you are a past GOP voter, motivated by fiscal restraint, wise, well executed foreign policy, accountability, responsibility, and small government; if those are your issues, that party simply no longer exists.[/list:u]And that's the Memo.
</J. O'Reilly>
-
It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it". Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?
Now we come to the part, whether there is something called life at all. Is a fetus living, or is it just potential. An incomplete house is still a house per se, but not a home. Just like how an unborn fetus is not alive (supposedly) but is still human. Now that home, which someone would live in, is blocking a potential highway. Now, would it be right to knock down the incomplete house for the highway. That highway would let people have an easier route, but the people who own the house don't want to, because it looks upon a beautiful view and next to transport. OK, I might not be making sense, but it IS connected.
I was the one to propagate that statement, not our dear friend silvercy.
-
I had the idea of paying women to have abortions, then takeing the fetus and selling them in decrotive jars on Ebay. So, I guess I vote yes.
-
I had the idea of paying women to have abortions, then takeing the fetus and selling them in decrotive jars on Ebay. So, I guess I vote yes.
i had the idea of hunting down all the stupid f&(*en spammers 'looks in Zizzlebobs direction' well hello there 'brings out some kind of weapon'
(if i'm being harsh its cause its godamn hot in sydney and the heat gets to you)
-
If you are a past GOP voter, motivated by fiscal restraint, wise, well executed foreign policy, accountability, responsibility, and small government; if those are your issues, that party simply no longer exists.[/list:u]And that's the Memo.
We're called Libertarians. Small, efficient government that provides for national security, a police system, a court system, etc. The systems neccisary to prevent people from victimizing each other. Mind you, various Libertarians take these (and the other Libertarian) principles to various degrees (I myself being moderate), but if you want a smaller government and none of the overbearing religious influence, there is a party for you.
-
Touché.
-
After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.
And I'm still not in favor of letting people just sleep around, which is a 'right' by all means but not an action that lies without consequence, and just let them escape the natural responsibilities. I don't care that's it women who are pregnant, I'd say the same thing if it were males. Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth. It's just not right. You can't steal and always expect to get away. You can't smoke and expect not to die much sooner as a result. You can't drink and not expect to possibly get drunk, and you can't get drunk and not expect to possibly do something incredibly stupid, like kill yourself, or kill others.
Here's another thought of mine on abortion. After discussing it with others, I came to a new opinion. If the child is at a point where it can survive without the mother, then it should not be aborted. You can take a 'fetus' a couple weeks before birth out of the womb and it'll still survive. Granted, it's not as likely, but it's past the point of complete dependence on the mother, and therefore should be considered self-sustaining, as Exodus puts it. And who's to say when the 'fetus' begins being sentient? We really don't know. Do we believe that we aren't sentient the moment we're born? If not, why not? Our minds are taking in the information of the world around us, the people, the environments, the bodily functions, the air, the texture of physical things, all that. When it's collected enough, we finally start to crawl. When it's collected enough, we finally start to talk, or at least make noises outside of crying/screaming/"goo goo ga ga gee gee". When it's collected enough, we finally start to walk. Then experience and teachings about things we don't discover for ourselves really take precedence, though they had an effect earlier on, too. But at this point, learning from experience is still the most effective form, and assures us of the "truth" and "fact" of it.
We really don't know when the fetus becomes sentient, it could be once the brain is developed enough to send impulses through nerves or whatever. Not sure about fetus growth, but yeah. So I consider the baby alive as soon as it's self-sustaining.
And honestly, abortion after this (like partial-birth abortion, which is fucking sick, btw)? Could you look at this baby, see the incredible pure innocence, the new life, the wonderful tenderness of a human being starting completely fresh, and say "Ok, kill it"? Honestly?
I won't get in the way of pro-abortion votes, but I'm not in support of it. I'm in support of enforcing responsibility. People always end up being happier when they're kept from doing things that will end in their unhappiness, or the unhappiness of others. Some say that isn't living. I say that's bullshit. You don't need to "try everything". If you can see the results based on what happened to others who participated in whatever action is in question, that should be good enough for you. If it's not good enough, then you'd better be willing to accept the responsibility of your actions.
[/opinion of non-religionist]
I also find myself to agree more and more with Libertarianism the more I hear about it
-
And I'm still not in favor of letting people just sleep around, which is a 'right' by all means but not an action that lies without consequence, and just let them escape the natural responsibilities. I don't care that's it women who are pregnant, I'd say the same thing if it were males. Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth. It's just not right. You can't steal and always expect to get away. You can't smoke and expect not to die much sooner as a result. You can't drink and not expect to possibly get drunk, and you can't get drunk and not expect to possibly do something incredibly stupid, like kill yourself, or kill others.
What the hell are you talking about? That is the most ignorant statement about drinking have EVER heard. I have gotten drunk countless times, and yet have a clean criminal record. No murders or attempted suicides. Weird? No, that is normal. You need to open your eyes instead of believing what your elders tell you all the time.
-
I put the word "possibly" in there for a reason, buddy. It has happened. Way too much.
Edit: I forgot something, about the self-sustaining. I have a cousin, now 12 years old, who was born at only 6 months of pregnancy, at 1lb. She's still around, though she had a multitude of physical handicaps for years and still has a speech impediment. She's still a bit slow of mind, but not really "stupid", and is physically rather capable these days. I doubt her problems was simply a result of leaving the womb so early, there was something already wrong with her, or else she wouldn't have been born 3 months early. The only thing wrong with her as a result of being born so early was the size of her lungs; she was completely reliant on equipment to help her breathe, since her lungs were too weak to help themselves, but otherwise she was fine. And if being reliant on equipment to help keep oneself alive means they aren't self-sustaining, then why do we consider loads of our elderly (and others) alive?
Oh, and about this sentence in my earlier post:
Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth.
I would replace birth with conception. My mistake.
-
After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.
I simply have to argue against this. The parents may be picky, but if there are no babies up for adoption in the first place, they're going to look for another child. It's plain ol' simple logic. You can't have one thing, you take another.
I also digress that your use of enforce, as though you should be able to force these people to do things they don't want to, disturbs me.
-
After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.
I simply have to argue against this. The parents may be picky, but if there are no babies up for adoption in the first place, they're going to look for another child. It's plain ol' simple logic. You can't have one thing, you take another.
I think there's a smaller margin of those people than you think. When couples sign up to adopt a baby, they're told immediately that they're on the waiting list. Chances are, if they were willing to take an older child instead, they would've done so right when they were told they were on a waiting list for a baby. That's logic. Given, there are those who would decide after an indeterminate matter of time that they would settle for an older child, but I believe those are in the minority. At least they are according to my old sociology teacher, who adopted a three-year-old, back in my senior year.
I also digress that your use of enforce, as though you should be able to force these people to do things they don't want to, disturbs me.
You're right, it was more forceful than I intended. Taking the word 'enforce' out is more what I wanted to get across.
-
After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.
I simply have to argue against this. The parents may be picky, but if there are no babies up for adoption in the first place, they're going to look for another child. It's plain ol' simple logic. You can't have one thing, you take another.
I think there's a smaller margin of those people than you think. When couples sign up to adopt a baby, they're told immediately that they're on the waiting list. Chances are, if they were willing to take an older child instead, they would've done so right when they were told they were on a waiting list for a baby. That's logic. Given, there are those who would decide after an indeterminate matter of time that they would settle for an older child, but I believe those are in the minority. At least they are according to my old sociology teacher, who adopted a three-year-old, back in my senior year.
You have brought up a valid point I hadn't thought of, so I'll have to revert to my argument that a fetus is not human.
You're still taking away chances from the children-- from other babies, even, by allowing a nonhuman fetus to develop and put it up for adoption, which still creates stress and competition amongst the children.
-
Firstly, the definition of life is:
In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:
1. Growth, full development, maturity
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from, itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis.
A fetus cant reproduce, can it? Doesnt this contradict me? Why am i saing it?
I put the word "possibly" in there for a reason, buddy. It has happened. Way too much.
Edit: I forgot something, about the self-sustaining. I have a cousin, now 12 years old, who was born at only 6 months of pregnancy, at 1lb. She's still around, though she had a multitude of physical handicaps for years and still has a speech impediment. She's still a bit slow of mind, but not really "stupid", and is physically rather capable these days. I doubt her problems was simply a result of leaving the womb so early, there was something already wrong with her, or else she wouldn't have been born 3 months early. The only thing wrong with her as a result of being born so early was the size of her lungs; she was completely reliant on equipment to help her breathe, since her lungs were too weak to help themselves, but otherwise she was fine. And if being reliant on equipment to help keep oneself alive means they aren't self-sustaining, then why do we consider loads of our elderly (and others) alive?
Oh, and about this sentence in my earlier post:
Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth.
I would replace birth with conception. My mistake.
We have already talked of this. My argument was that humans like elders and vegetables are considered human because we created a love, bonding, friendship, commitment, loyalty... to them and therefore seeing them die is still seen as manslaughter if you remove the life supporting system.[/quote]
-
And I'm still not in favor of letting people just sleep around, which is a 'right' by all means but not an action that lies without consequence, and just let them escape the natural responsibilities. I don't care that's it women who are pregnant, I'd say the same thing if it were males. Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth. It's just not right. You can't steal and always expect to get away. You can't smoke and expect not to die much sooner as a result. You can't drink and not expect to possibly get drunk, and you can't get drunk and not expect to possibly do something incredibly stupid, like kill yourself, or kill others.
I was expecting someone else to point out that you are using a false analogy here. The reason people should be able to have sex and not suffer an unwanted pregnancy, but should not be able to steal and expect to be pardoned by the authorities when caught, is because sex is not a crime and stealing is. All your analogies are flawed in this same way. What you're trying to say is that actions have consequences that cannot be avoided, which is true, but you are completing failing to comprehend--or at least take into account--the fact that not all acts are equal and not all consequences are weighted the same. The law must balance civil liberties with justice and order. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a deep intrusion upon her human rights to privacy and self-determination, an intrusion which by no coincidence sets her at odds with the ruling sex, leading to the subjugation of women as a whole. And what is gained by enslaving half the human race in this matter? Only more of the same! In stark contrast, laws against robbery uphold the peace and make life safer for everyone. That is but one of the reasons why stealing is a crime, and sex is not.
You say you're "still not in favor of letting people just sleep around." In other words, you want to control them. And, since it's women who get pregnant, what you're really talking about is controlling women. For what purpose? To reduce them to the role of domesticated babymaking factories? That'd be an awfully religious position to take, and I would like to think that such an idea is furthest from your mind, but you need to know that, regardless of your intentions, the implications of your stated position on this matter lead to just that: Sexism.
And if being reliant on equipment to help keep oneself alive means they aren't self-sustaining, then why do we consider loads of our elderly (and others) alive?
The unborn are an onus upon their mothers, and the rights of the mother trump their own. Once brought into the world, there is no one left to trump an individual's rights in that fashion. Your comparison between the elderly and disabled is invalid.
-
What you're trying to say is that actions have consequences that cannot be avoided, which is true, but you are completing failing to comprehend--or at least take into account--the fact that not all acts are equal and not all consequences are weighted the same.
I didn't say they were the same. I pointed out other events that have possible consequences, as in comparison, but I never said they were the same. Everyone seems to be misunderstanding all my points. I suppose I need to work on being clearer in the future.
...Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a deep intrusion upon her human rights to privacy and self-determination, an intrusion which by no coincidence sets her at odds with the ruling sex, leading to the subjugation of women as a whole. And what is gained by enslaving half the human race in this matter? Only more of the same!...
You say you're "still not in favor of letting people just sleep around." In other words, you want to control them. And, since it's women who get pregnant, what you're really talking about is controlling women. For what purpose? To reduce them to the role of domesticated babymaking factories? That'd be an awfully religious position to take, and I would like to think that such an idea is furthest from your mind, but you need to know that, regardless of your intentions, the implications of your stated position on this matter lead to just that: Sexism.
Responsibility. That's my opinion on it all. No, I'm not in favor of people just sleeping around. It's not wise, and that's because it has consequences that, obviously, people aren't willing to suffer (for clarity, don't use this word literally. I feel it rather tedious to have to spell this out, but it's proven that I have to, unfortunetely). I'm not in favor of drinking, smoking, doing any drugs, or any of that stuff. I'm not in favor of trying to ignore those consequences. But I'm not gonna stop people from doing it. I already said I won't get in the way of pro-abortion laws. I just don't agree with them.
If I were to vote in favor of a pro-abortion law, I'd wanna make sure the women abort the baby immediately once she's discovered she's pregnant. Maybe she's given a two-week deadline or something.
And I'm definetely not sexist, there's no need to implicate that on me. I already said it wasn't "because they are women" who get pregnant, I'd have the same opinion if it was men. I hold women to be in the same equality as men, and I rather like them more ^_^.
The unborn are an onus upon their mothers, and the rights of the mother trump their own. Once brought into the world, there is no one left to trump an individual's rights in that fashion. Your comparison between the elderly and disabled is invalid.
I was referring to my little cousin, already out of the womb, who was able to survive by living off of equipment after only 6 months in the womb, just like many other people of higher age considered "human" and/or "alive".
-
The law must balance civil liberties with justice and order. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a deep intrusion upon her human rights to privacy and self-determination, an intrusion which by no coincidence sets her at odds with the ruling sex, leading to the subjugation of women as a whole. And what is gained by enslaving half the human race in this matter? Only more of the same! In stark contrast, laws against robbery uphold the peace and make life safer for everyone. That is but one of the reasons why stealing is a crime, and sex is not.
You say you're "still not in favor of letting people just sleep around." In other words, you want to control them. And, since it's women who get pregnant, what you're really talking about is controlling women. For what purpose? To reduce them to the role of domesticated babymaking factories? That'd be an awfully religious position to take, and I would like to think that such an idea is furthest from your mind, but you need to know that, regardless of your intentions, the implications of your stated position on this matter lead to just that: Sexism.
The unborn are an onus upon their mothers, and the rights of the mother trump their own. Once brought into the world, there is no one left to trump an individual's rights in that fashion. Your comparison between the elderly and disabled is invalid.
Isn't that a little extreme?
When, at some scientifically determinable point in gestation, a human fetus develops the capacity of cognition, society should recognize its fundamental human rights. I strongly disagree with the idea that one person's rights should ever take precedence over another.
A woman has a fundamental right to control her body. But, at some point, the fetus also has a right to life. It is due to the unmerciful laws of nature that the rights of the mother are put in opposition to the rights of the fetus. Unfortunately, since women are the ones who get pregnant, they are discriminated against by nature. The laws of nature do not respect individual human rights; human mortality is a similar tresspass which affects everyone equally.
Given this unequal situation, society has to adapt to create the best possible solution. Which is worse, the loss of liberty of the mother or the loss of life of the cognitive fetus? I strongly disagree that the rights of the fetus should be superseded by the mother due to her superior mental ability and depth of experiences. I have equal rights with even the most mentally handicapped, cognitive individual. I think that a temporary infringement on the freedom of the mother is preferable to the ultimate destruction of the fetus. The abortion of a cognitive fetus should only be performed if it is medically necessary. This situation is tragic and currently unavoidable. Of course, we as a society have the responsibility to provide the highest standard of care for the mother, and act to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the future.
I'm not sure what point in gestation a human fetus would become cognitive, but I think it would still leave ample opportunity for any woman who desires an abortion to have one, which should be as safe, free, confidential and readily available as any standard medical procedure.
-
Edit: In reply to Mystik
You and I are usually in agreement on the various issues that pop up here on the Compendium. But it's nice for people to have some contrast between one another every so often. In that regard I appreciate the opportunity to disagree with you.
Anyhow, I stand by my insistence that your position--that any antisex position--whether you realize it or not, supports the subjugation of women, and diminishes the cultural horizons of all people. This is irrespective of whether or not premarital celibacy also promotes "responsibility," although in that regard I would ask by what measure you define responsibility. Why is abstaining from casual sex responsible? But I digress.
-
I put the word "possibly" in there for a reason, buddy. It has happened. Way too much.
You make it look like the majority in the way you worded it. and putting possibly in there takes all the wind out of the point. Hell I could possibly become religious and then start killing people who are not believers in my religion.
-
I strongly disagree with the idea that one person's rights should ever take precedence over another.
In reality, where we all live, human rights are sometimes at odds. This is unavoidable. When such instances arise, we cannot speak in the absolute language of all people having an inherent equality. Either by our action or inaction, one party will always be favored over another. The best recourse is to make sure that the outcome is as equitable and just as possible. In this regard, it would be unconscionable to ever prefer the rights of an unborn fetus to those of a developed human being. A woman old enough to bear children has an identity--she has a personality and a memory and a sentient will. A fetus is brand new; it has only a book full of empty pages. When you ask yourself what about us as human beings is meaningful, our identity is at the heart of the answer. The mother has an identity; the fetus does not. I mentioned in my long post at the beginning of this topic that the inception of cognition is a good point to "certify" the humanity of an unborn child. I don't deny that; I dismiss it as insufficient justification for making an abortion policy. Why? Because we still have this little problem of the rights of the mother. We simply cannot have the rights of the fetus trump those of the mother under any circumstances. Abortion isn't about the fetus. It's about the woman. It's not about killing fetuses. It's about saving women...saving them from our own human weaknesses to impose our judgments upon other people's reality.
-
You make it look like the majority in the way you worded it. and putting possibly in there takes all the wind out of the point. Hell I could possibly become religious and then start killing people who are not believers in my religion.
I find it disturbing that you don't seem aware of the thousands of deaths that occur each month because of drunk driving.
-
The whole thing is, there is no way to prove a fetus even has cognition, so it's only logical to assume it doesn't.
I'm honestly very tired of this whole "responsibility" argument being used. You make mistakes, do you not? Do you not fuck up? It would be a whole-hearted LIE to say you haven't screwed up due to irresponsibility, and an even larger lie to state that you didn't want somebody to help you with that error.
I really should tote this around in my signature:
IT AIN'T YOUR CALL, PAL.
-
And it would be a lie to say I would've been better off if I'd not paid the price for fucking up. We learn best by suffering consequences of our actions, not by getting away with them freely. Sometimes we get lucky, but we can't live a life depending on luck to get us out of holes we dig ourselves into. Life just ain't that easy. Sure we want help when we're in those situations, but do we deserve it? If not, then we shouldn't get it. Sounds cruel, but I apply this even to myself.
I got in an accident last night driving my little sister to her honors choir concert. It was a light accident, I must've hit the lady in front of me at about 5mph. It was a result of looking down a moment to change the air, looking up and suddenly seeing this car completely stopped about 20 yards ahead. I still don't know how I didn't see it before; from what I remembered, the car in front of me was not too far ahead and was going no slower than me, and I was only going about 25mph as is. They must've moved out of the way really quick while I wasn't looking or something. I slammed on the brakes, which failed miserably, and hit her lightly. Neither of our bumpers suffered any damage or scrapes at all, yet she still called the cops on me (which was smart on her part, really). We got nailed because apparently, in Louisiana, once a cop is called on an accident, it's considered an accident and the driver at fault is nailed with a citation, regardless of whether any damage of injury occured or not. By the way, there was no injury either. As a result, we missed the entirety of my sister's concert and got nailed by a $90 ticket and a hefty rise in our insurance, which is already too high for my family to afford.
What did I do as a result? I offered to revoke my license and cancel my drivers insurance so it wouldn't cost my family anymore. I immediately offered to bake a cake for my sister (I never cook, by the way. Ever. Cuz I'm terrible at it, and I hate doing it), and when there weren't enough pieces for everyone in the family, I gave mine up. When my parents offered to pay for the ticket (even though they have no money), I told them no, I'd pay for it on my own, even though I'm still job hunting, have a student loan to pay off, am trying to fly out to MA to start going to school out there hopefully before winter semester, and have no money anyway.
Did I try to escape the consequences, place all the blame on someone else, and get away with making a mistake? No, I took full responsibility of my actions, even though it's of extreme inconvenience to myself.
I don't consider myself perfect by a LOOOOOONG shot, but I'm proud of the way I handled the situation. I don't find it fair that I'm willing to pay the price of my actions, even though I didn't do anything that no one else who drives does, AND the accident was of no consequence physicall to anyone (it hardly deserves to be called an accident), and we're struggling to provide a law that allows people to revoke themselves of their responsibility simply because they don't want to accept the consequence of their actions. That's why I'm personally not supportive of it.
-
In reality, where we all live, human rights are sometimes at odds. This is unavoidable. When such instances arise, we cannot speak in the absolute language of all people having an inherent equality. Either by our action or inaction, one party will always be favored over another. The best recourse is to make sure that the outcome is as equitable and just as possible. In this regard, it would be unconscionable to ever prefer the rights of an unborn fetus to those of a developed human being. A woman old enough to bear children has an identity--she has a personality and a memory and a sentient will. A fetus is brand new; it has only a book full of empty pages. When you ask yourself what about us as human beings is meaningful, our identity is at the heart of the answer. The mother has an identity; the fetus does not. I mentioned in my long post at the beginning of this topic that the inception of cognition is a good point to "certify" the humanity of an unborn child. I don't deny that; I dismiss it as insufficient justification for making an abortion policy. Why? Because we still have this little problem of the rights of the mother. We simply cannot have the rights of the fetus trump those of the mother under any circumstances. Abortion isn't about the fetus. It's about the woman. It's not about killing fetuses. It's about saving women...saving them from our own human weaknesses to impose our judgments upon other people's reality.
I hate this sort of ethical uncertainty. Honestly, I don't really care whether women have abortions or not; I'm only trying to be objective. I don't really think a fetus at any stage of development has much in the way of cognition going on, anyway. I just feel that it is callous to destroy what may be defined as a person.
That is why I desire a technological solution. The human condition, as it stands, is completely unacceptable to me.
-
And it would be a lie to say I would've been better off if I'd not paid the price for fucking up. We learn best by suffering consequences of our actions, not by getting away with them freely. Sometimes we get lucky, but we can't live a life depending on luck to get us out of holes we dig ourselves into. Life just ain't that easy. Sure we want help when we're in those situations, but do we deserve it? If not, then we shouldn't get it. Sounds cruel, but I apply this even to myself.
... This is a FUCKING CHILD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT SPILLED MILK, MAN.
You're suggesting that parents not do abortion, because they have to "suffer" through having a child to learn their lesson?
And if life permits you to get an abortion, it IS that easy. People keep looking at this with a moralist viewpoint, and it's pissing me off.
-
And it would be a lie to say I would've been better off if I'd not paid the price for fucking up. We learn best by suffering consequences of our actions, not by getting away with them freely. Sometimes we get lucky, but we can't live a life depending on luck to get us out of holes we dig ourselves into. Life just ain't that easy. Sure we want help when we're in those situations, but do we deserve it? If not, then we shouldn't get it. Sounds cruel, but I apply this even to myself.
The trouble with this is that you are bringing a child in to the world who's only purpose for existing is to be a "consequence" for their parents either fucking up, or simply having bad luck (condoms don't work 100% of the time).
What kind of miserable existance is that?
Kid: "Mommy, daddy, why did you want to have a kid?"
Parent: "Well, that's the thing, we didn't want you, never did. We just kept you around to serve as a constant reminder that we fucked up, and then didn't even deal with that fuck up."
It's one thing to take responsibility for your actions, and it is a comendable thing, it is the right thing to do. But to hold another person responsible for your actions, which you are doing if you are having a child you do not want and/or lack the resources to raise, is reprehensible and cowardly.
-
You're suggesting that parents not do abortion, because they have to "suffer" through having a child to learn their lesson?
What kind of miserable existance is that?
Kid: "Mommy, daddy, why did you want to have a kid?"
Parent: "Well, that's the thing, we didn't want you, never did. We just kept you around to serve as a constant reminder that we fucked up, and then didn't even deal with that fuck up."
The parents weren't willing to go through raising a child? My answer to both of you: Adoption. Yes yes, before you go haywire on your take on adoption, Ex, I know what your stance is, but that's still my answer.
Still, I'm not completely against abortion early on in the development stages, like...as soon as they can find out they're pregnant, but if they wait until it's been, like, 4-6 months into pregnancy...I'm not in favor of that. However, I'd rather they donated the fetus for stem-cell research rather than just kill it and dump it. If you're not gonna give the baby to someone else in the form of a baby, give it to scientists in the form of a fetus so at least SOMEONE benefits from all of it.
And BTW, I agree with Gray's big long entry.
-
The parents weren't willing to go through raising a child? My answer to both of you: Adoption. Yes yes, before you go haywire on your take on adoption, Ex, I know what your stance is, but that's still my answer.
My stance? No, my good sir, I've offered facts as to why it isn't a good option.
You make it all sound soooo easy. I'd like to see you deal with this shit like I had to. Then come back to me.
-
Still, I'm not completely against abortion early on in the development stages, like...as soon as they can find out they're pregnant, but if they wait until it's been, like, 4-6 months into pregnancy...I'm not in favor of that. However, I'd rather they donated the fetus for stem-cell research rather than just kill it and dump it. If you're not gonna give the baby to someone else in the form of a baby, give it to scientists in the form of a fetus so at least SOMEONE benefits from all of it.
Fetuses aren't the problem with stem cell research. Funding is. Whenever an infertile couple goes in to have an in vitro fertilization or similar procedure, instead of taking nature's hint and adopting, more fetuses (fetii?) are created than are implanted. There are hundreds, if not thousands of fetuses lying unused in labs all across the country, just waiting for scientists to have the budget to get to work on them.
And while I can't put a date on when I'd prefer abortions to occur by, because of my own ignorance of the subject, I'd much prefer that abortions occur before the brain, and therefore, possibly sentience, arise.
-
There are hundreds, if not thousands of fetuses lying unused in labs all across the country, just waiting for scientists to have the budget to get to work on them.
Technically, those are embryos, not fetuses.
-
Just for a different point of view, what about the fact that the mother is NOT a clean book, and that the child never had a chance at life s/he couldve had? And that the child has never commited evil? Plus, I think that, me talking from a pro abortionist view, that if a woman wants to have an abortion a second time, and both times were just because then that is horrendously wrong.
-
You make it look like the majority in the way you worded it. and putting possibly in there takes all the wind out of the point. Hell I could possibly become religious and then start killing people who are not believers in my religion.
I find it disturbing that you don't seem aware of the thousands of deaths that occur each month because of drunk driving.
I am perfectly aware, hell I have friends who were caught and prosecuted. I know more about it first hand then you do. But we are digressing.
Adoption is not the best desicion. Again first hand experience, I know adopted kids and they hated thier foster parents because they treated them poorly. These people will adopt even though they are not financialy secure enough to raise the number of kids they have. Thus these kids live lives unfulfilled because they never got the chances that a normal family had. The adoption process needs to be much stricter than it is.
-
There are hundreds, if not thousands of fetuses lying unused in labs all across the country, just waiting for scientists to have the budget to get to work on them.
Technically, those are embryos, not fetuses.
Point noted. Either way, they are filled with stem cells, and never going to have a change at life.
-
What makes a plant or bacterium more alive then a fetus? Reproduction? A 2 month old baby cant even do that
-
What makes a plant or bacterium more alive then a fetus? Reproduction? A 2 month old baby cant even do that
I'm not sure what you are getting at. They are all alive. Are you going to say we shouldn't kill bacteria? Impossible; countless bacteria are destroyed as a part of our digestive proccesses. By being alive, we make other things die.
-
I'm not sure what you are getting at. They are all alive. Are you going to say we shouldn't kill bacteria? Impossible; countless bacteria are destroyed as a part of our digestive proccesses. By being alive, we make other things die.
That's another interesting point you rise, continuing the departure from the topic of this thread (which is probably a relief to many). I'm under the firm belief that as the superior race, we have all rights to take advantage of the other life forms on this planet, so long as we're civil and humane about it. I would say the same even if we were the inferior race to another. That's the way nature works, and I'm ok with that.
The humane part is key, though.
-
I'm not sure what you are getting at. They are all alive. Are you going to say we shouldn't kill bacteria? Impossible; countless bacteria are destroyed as a part of our digestive proccesses. By being alive, we make other things die.
That's another interesting point you rise, continuing the departure from the topic of this thread (which is probably a relief to many). I'm under the firm belief that as the superior race, we have all rights to take advantage of the other life forms on this planet, so long as we're civil and humane about it. I would say the same even if we were the inferior race to another. That's the way nature works, and I'm ok with that.
The humane part is key, though.
I noticed your said "humane" but not "responsibly". That troubles me. We, as consumers, are required to destroy other lifeforms in order to insure our survival. We have the right to seek out sustinance, just as any other creature does, and we have the right to defend ourselves from those looking to make meals out of us, just as any creature does. The trouble is, if we are arbitrary in our slaughter, even if it is "civil" and "humane", we will overburden the ecosystem, drive the species we depend upon (either directly or indirectly) to extinction, and then we all starve to death. Bad. We need to be responsible, both in our rates of reproduction and of harvesting of other lifeforms.
-
Okay, I've been lurking here for a while, hoping someone would get to this point, but no one has (possibly because of the lack of actual women here). The fact is, Abortion is not easy. Even if you put aside pricing concerns, it's something unnatural being done to the body, and it causes a fair bit of its own suffering. Mystik, if you're insistant that women take responsibility for becoming pregnant, going through an abortion is enough (ironically, I don't see you proposing that men go through the same pain in order to ensure equality).
-
I noticed your said "humane" but not "responsibly". That troubles me. We, as consumers, are required to destroy other lifeforms in order to insure our survival. We have the right to seek out sustinance, just as any other creature does, and we have the right to defend ourselves from those looking to make meals out of us, just as any creature does. The trouble is, if we are arbitrary in our slaughter, even if it is "civil" and "humane", we will overburden the ecosystem, drive the species we depend upon (either directly or indirectly) to extinction, and then we all starve to death. Bad. We need to be responsible, both in our rates of reproduction and of harvesting of other lifeforms.
You're right. Responsibly, of course. How could I forget that? I must be tired...
I suppose this thread has been milked dry. I would say as a final note on my part that if there does become in existence an abortion law that allows abortion in all states, I will vote for it ONLY IF there's a deadline for abortion to be done early on in the pregnancy. Well, and the obvious requirement to allow abortion at any time in case of rape and/or endangerment of the mother.
-
Here's my quick opinion on abortion:
It's morally wrong, but having a law against it makes no sense in society.
-
im a guy....... one guy...... a judge is one person....... one person.... what right does any one person have to say that a woman shouldnt have an abortion.... if abortion was outlawd then we would have a problem with "back ally abortions" women going to vets or worse winding up with a coat hanger in one hand with a mouse in the other reading a site explaining how to give your self an abortion, not the most safe thing in the world... untill theres a better way allow abortion, since when did god judge you on the actions of others?
and another thing, i am pro choice.... being pro choice isnt the same as being pro abortion, i myself do think abortion isnt the most favorable thing to do but i recognize that it is NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE, their for im not not pro abortion, im just pro choice
-
I noticed your said "humane" but not "responsibly". That troubles me. We, as consumers, are required to destroy other lifeforms in order to insure our survival. We have the right to seek out sustenance, just as any other creature does, and we have the right to defend ourselves from those looking to make meals out of us, just as any creature does. The trouble is, if we are arbitrary in our slaughter, even if it is "civil" and "humane", we will overburden the ecosystem, drive the species we depend upon (either directly or indirectly) to extinction, and then we all starve to death. Bad. We need to be responsible, both in our rates of reproduction and of harvesting of other lifeforms.
Although this is off-topic, our current ecosystem is obsolete because it can no longer support continued human growth and prosperity. We need to engineer a new ecosystem, as we have engineered our local environments, to support human civilization sustainably, with the greatest degree of prosperity for the largest number of people. Nature should exist to serve man, in perfect harmony with man's needs.
I sense a split topic coming on.
-
I noticed your said "humane" but not "responsibly". That troubles me. We, as consumers, are required to destroy other lifeforms in order to insure our survival. We have the right to seek out sustenance, just as any other creature does, and we have the right to defend ourselves from those looking to make meals out of us, just as any creature does. The trouble is, if we are arbitrary in our slaughter, even if it is "civil" and "humane", we will overburden the ecosystem, drive the species we depend upon (either directly or indirectly) to extinction, and then we all starve to death. Bad. We need to be responsible, both in our rates of reproduction and of harvesting of other lifeforms.
Although this is off-topic, our current ecosystem is obsolete because it can no longer support continued human growth and prosperity. We need to engineer a new ecosystem, as we have engineered our local environments, to support human civilization sustainably, with the greatest degree of prosperity for the largest number of people. Nature should exist to serve man, in perfect harmony with man's needs.
I sense a split topic coming on.
hay make it and ill post in it, i think the best way to create our own ecosystem as you put it is domes, just build them everywhere, its a self contained envrioment, we could make a few for the purpose of oxygen generation, pump it in to all the domes and have a contained safe weather sytem, pluse the strength of the dome system will serve for some good protection, heck dig in the ground and build a sphere if we must, just make big highway airlocks and we are set
-
Alas, the poor Biosphere project. We have a good ways to go yet before our domes perform the way they're supposed to. Unfortunately for our boundless impatience, mastering the subtleties of even the simplest ecosystem is years ahead.
-
Alas, the poor Biosphere project. We have a good ways to go yet before our domes perform the way they're supposed to. Unfortunately for our boundless impatience, mastering the subtleties of even the simplest ecosystem is years ahead.
not entirely, probably just costly, realy most of the problem is soil bacteria which helps plants by converting certain matter into nitrogen for the plants.... it all depends on what problems their where..... maybe ill look it up and examine what kinds of solutions their are.... man this is getting off topic hehe
-
I noticed your said "humane" but not "responsibly". That troubles me. We, as consumers, are required to destroy other lifeforms in order to insure our survival. We have the right to seek out sustenance, just as any other creature does, and we have the right to defend ourselves from those looking to make meals out of us, just as any creature does. The trouble is, if we are arbitrary in our slaughter, even if it is "civil" and "humane", we will overburden the ecosystem, drive the species we depend upon (either directly or indirectly) to extinction, and then we all starve to death. Bad. We need to be responsible, both in our rates of reproduction and of harvesting of other lifeforms.
Although this is off-topic, our current ecosystem is obsolete because it can no longer support continued human growth and prosperity. We need to engineer a new ecosystem, as we have engineered our local environments, to support human civilization sustainably, with the greatest degree of prosperity for the largest number of people. Nature should exist to serve man, in perfect harmony with man's needs.
I sense a split topic coming on.
Man master of Nature? Say that to a natural disaster, pal.
-
Man master of Nature? Say that to a natural disaster, pal.
It's not unbelievable that man may come up with ways, most likely through technology, to prevent natural disasters by many ways and means, though that would most likely finding a way to change the way the tectonic plates move, and if "The Core" is right at all, it'd fuck us up. At least we'll probably have the technology to eventually quell all major storms before landfall, and possibly protect towns near volcanos from receiving damage by barriers or sealing them or whatnot. Doesn't account for all volcanos, since we don't know if any are possible hidden (like the movie "Volcano"...a stretch, but who knows?). Or we put barriers over the towns, not around the volcanos, protecting them from ALL these things, including maybe global warming. Still doesn't solve the problem of earthquakes and potential hidden volcanos. And it's damn advanced technology.
But we'll either eventually have the techonology to do all that, or leave this planet for a better one. I don't think it's impossible. We've got very capable brains.
-
Man master of Nature? Say that to a natural disaster, pal.
It's not unbelievable that man may come up with ways, most likely through technology, to prevent natural disasters by many ways and means, though that would most likely finding a way to change the way the tectonic plates move, and if "The Core" is right at all, it'd fuck us up. At least we'll probably have the technology to eventually quell all major storms before landfall, and possibly protect towns near volcanos from receiving damage by barriers or sealing them or whatnot. Doesn't account for all volcanos, since we don't know if any are possible hidden (like the movie "Volcano"...a stretch, but who knows?). Or we put barriers over the towns, not around the volcanos, protecting them from ALL these things, including maybe global warming. Still doesn't solve the problem of earthquakes and potential hidden volcanos. And it's damn advanced technology.
But we'll either eventually have the techonology to do all that, or leave this planet for a better one. I don't think it's impossible. We've got very capable brains.
Proven time and time again that we shouldn't fuck with nature, because we're not making anything any better.
In fact, most evidence points to us DESTROYING the environment by attempting to control it. You talk of controling tectonic plates; I don't really want to think too much on what trouble that would cause.
In any case, we're getting highly off-topic, so I believe this should be split.
-
As Lord J said, every creature takes advantage of its surrounding, we just take it to the extreme.
For RD, i meant that what makes a plant more alive then a fetus?
Also, I am now author of ANOTHER topic split, due to unintentional means
-
For RD, i meant that what makes a plant more alive then a fetus?
Nothing. They are both equally alive. Where are you going with this?
-
So...The people that say a fetus isnt alive, are also saying a plant...isnt alive?
-
I hate this sort of ethical uncertainty. Honestly, I don't really care whether women have abortions or not; I'm only trying to be objective. I don't really think a fetus at any stage of development has much in the way of cognition going on, anyway. I just feel that it is callous to destroy what may be defined as a person.
The unborn are unique. All else being equal, they will become human beings, with protection under the law. But they are not yet to that point--loony legal rulings and religious dogma notwithstanding. Nevertheless, we recognize the unborn as distinct from the mother from the moment they are conceived. It's only too easy to draw the anti-abortion conclusion...and so that's what many people do, to the detriment of all women, and the entire human civilization. Your concern is different, a sort of consternation that follows from focusing on the unborn child rather than the mother. I said when I opened this thread that, were it just the unborn child, the inception of cognition is a good point to draw the line. There is no murkiness here beyond a range of a couple of weeks. However, it isn't just the unborn child. The mother has rights too, which religious doctrine has denied them on grounds of their gender from ancient times on into the modern era. Her rights in this conundrum are perfectly clear. Thus, there is no conundrum...no uncertainty. Regardless of the plight of the unborn, the freedom of any mentally competent person to control her own body and direct the course of her own health is, in my opinion, among the most fundamental human rights. The pseudo-human unborn child, unfortunately for the child, is on the losing side of Justice's scale. Your consternation stems from the fact that in this case, justice carries a price. I'm here to tell you that, in an imperfect society, among a mortal people, justice usually will.
That is why I desire a technological solution. The human condition, as it stands, is completely unacceptable to me.
Yes, I can agree with you completely on that point. Preventing conception entirely is the ultimate solution to this problem, one that will eliminate the conflict and thus obviate the conflict that causes you such discomfort. (Although I would expect to see, shortly thereafter, yet another religious assault on women's freedom of sexuality, in some other form.)
It's one thing to take responsibility for your actions, and it is a comendable thing, it is the right thing to do. But to hold another person responsible for your actions, which you are doing if you are having a child you do not want and/or lack the resources to raise, is reprehensible and cowardly.
This raises an important point. Abortion isn't about finding a place to put the baby. If it were, then obviously we would want to put the baby safe and sound into a doctor's arms at nine months' gestation. No. Abortion is about women's rights. More essentially, it is about human rights concerning pregnant women. Abortion is about a woman retaining control of her own body. We each have one body in this world that is ours alone to rule. If a woman wants to gratify her sexual desire, that is her choice--and an understandable choice at that. If a woman wants to avoid the onus of a pregnancy, or childbirth, or child, for whatever reason, then that is her choice as well. It really is that simple. Everything else, every other detail, is extraneous to this core.
Don't listen to the religious diversionary arguments that carry us away from this point. Don't buy into their emotionally loaded jargon. This isn't about "viability." The viability of a fetus to prosper outside its mother is irrelevant. And this isn't about chosing adoption over abortion. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because when treated as such it necessarily revokes a woman's right to control her own body. Abortion is about women's rights. Deep down, any opposition to abortion is logically based upon an institutionalized fear of, or contempt for, women. Just look at the corner into which we have backed the religious camp during the course of this thread. They're treading right on the edge of connecting the dots and realizing for themselves--whilst admitting to the rest of us that which we already knew--that the strength of their religion's opposition to abortion lies not in the sanctity of unborn life, but in the subjugation of the female sex.
Having said that, your point is well-taken Radical_Dreamer...but it is incorrect. It is a very appealing line of thought to say that we mustn't hold the child accountable for the mother's decision to exercise "responsibility" and not abort, and then go on to expose that child to a world that does not want it and will not provide for it. However, whereas we may exempt individual parents from the responsibility to raise their unwanted children, we may not exempt society itself from the same, and, to the extent that we lack the social infrastructure to accommodate unwanted children properly, this is the fault solely of the society as a whole. As such, it has no weight in the abortion debate other than to provide an impetus for concluding the debate soon with the appropriate legislation expanding abortion rights and improving upon the aforementioned infrastructure.
Just for a different point of view, what about the fact that the mother is NOT a clean book, and that the child never had a chance at life s/he couldve had? And that the child has never commited evil?
This is prejudice on your part--or, more literally, pre-judgment. As such, it is logically unfounded. We cannot ascertain an unborn child's right to exist based on a life it has not lived. Sure, the child might become the next Einstein. It might also become the next Hitler. It doesn't matter. It hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile, the woman is right here, alive and very real, asking ever so kindly for you not to strip her of one of her most basic rights...and you're saying you would tell her that you, Burning Zeppelin, are more deserving to control her body than she is, because your values are more important than her values, and that if she doesn't like being turned into a slave at your whim, then she should not have exercised another of her fundamental rights, which is to have sex at her leisure, in the first place.
That's the very crux of prejudice, and that's why prejudice has no place in justice.
Plus, I think that, me talking from a pro abortionist view, that if a woman wants to have an abortion a second time, and both times were just because then that is horrendously wrong.
A woman has the sovereign right to control her own body. This is not a right that can only be used once, like some free pass, and must then be forfeited thereafter. It is a right that continues uninterrupted throughout her life. If that means she has an abortion at some point, fine. Two abortions; fine. Ten thousand abortions; fine. Each abortion is decided on its own merits; there is no cumulative score being kept.
In your world, it may be irresponsible of a woman to be responsible for herself. In the real world, that's absurd.
Okay, I've been lurking here for a while, hoping someone would get to this point, but no one has (possibly because of the lack of actual women here). The fact is, Abortion is not easy. Even if you put aside pricing concerns, it's something unnatural being done to the body, and it causes a fair bit of its own suffering. Mystik, if you're insistant that women take responsibility for becoming pregnant, going through an abortion is enough (ironically, I don't see you proposing that men go through the same pain in order to ensure equality).
I think you've bought in to a religionist talking point. And, like most such talking points, I can recognize the source with my handy-dandy Bullshitometer 7000. The fact of the matter is that a professionally administered abortion is safer even than pregnancy itself, and much safer than full-term childbirth. As far as medical procedures go, it's a pretty benign one. To call abortion "unnatural" is to play semantics; the "natural" counterpart of abortion is miscarriage, many of which are handled in much the same way. But more to the point, "unnatural" doesn't mean a whit. I can name any number of "unnatural" things we do to our bodies every day, which improve our health and bolster our quality of life.
Here's my quick opinion on abortion:
It's morally wrong, but having a law against it makes no sense in society.
If abortion were "morally wrong," as you say, then it would make all the sense in the world to have a law against it. The fact of the matter is that it isn't morally wrong. There's something in your belief system that's keeping you from saying that society has the obligation to outlaw abortions, and whatever that is, even by your own standards it outranks your "moral indignation" at the act of abortion itself. I suspect you are invoking people's right to choice. That's a much more "moral" right than you give it credit for.
So...The people that say a fetus isnt alive, are also saying a plant...isnt alive?
What the hell are you talking about?
Z, listen up. Rhetorical maneuvers are supposed to be invisible. Yours stands out like the broadside of the Titanic in front of a big fat iceberg, and it's going to meet with about the same level of success. Plants are alive. Fetuses are alive. That isn't the point. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Indeed, if the unborn were not alive at all, this controversy would not even exist. Whatever razzle-dazzle point you were trying to make, you might want to try making it a different way.
-
Leebot did bring up a good point, though, that made me rethink things. Frankly, to try to bring up terms against why abortion should not be done, outside of religious absolutes, it's too difficult to decide better options than abortion because circumstances and situations are all different and random. There is no save-all solution outside of simple abortion, for now. And Josh's argument about the mother's rights over the fetus' is valid, too. I agree with both Josh and Gray that we need better technology to handle this issue.
And I'm gonna say this for the last time, since it seems I've been ignored: it's not because they're female. If males were the ones getting pregnant instead, I'd have the same feelings. Responsibility belongs to those who put themselves in situations because they caused something through action.
...and I just had a very interesting thought.
Try this perspective on for size: what if the father wanted the baby to be born? What if he wanted to take care of it and raise it and love it, even if it was on his own? Or even if he didn't want to raise it on his own, but give it to some loving couple who are dying to have a baby? It's biologically as much his child as hers. But noooo, it's her rights, and it's her[/b] final word. Think that's fair? What do you do in those situations? Say "Sorry buddy, but it's her call. She's the one with the baby, not you." And think of this: what if she was the one who coaxed him into sex? I don't think it's hard to seperate legal bullshit from fairness and some basic understandings of what's "right." We all seem to forget that the reasons behind people having sex is not always "because they really wanted to, hoping to avoid the consequences."
But then again, legalities would state that it's literally a part of her, and basically would call it her legal property, making it hers to do what she wants with it. This would say that indeed, all ideas of child-bearing and child-birth attachments go straight to the women. The rights, along with the responsibilities, go straight to her, regardless of how she got the way she did. Will we rule out the men simply because they aren't carrying the baby, or will we only consider them part of it when throwing blame around for giving this conceived fetus the chance for life and growth?
Think it over. I'm not putting forward an opinion on the matter, just presenting the perspective, cuz I don't think many people even consider it. I didn't until just now. All I'm saying is think it over. Put aside all other legal implications, religious beliefs, prejudices, morals, what-have-you.
And now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to return to the North Crater to Master KotR for my final Master Materia and shove it up Sephiroth's ass =)
-
It's one thing to take responsibility for your actions, and it is a comendable thing, it is the right thing to do. But to hold another person responsible for your actions, which you are doing if you are having a child you do not want and/or lack the resources to raise, is reprehensible and cowardly.
This raises an important point. Abortion isn't about finding a place to put the baby. If it were, then obviously we would want to put the baby safe and sound into a doctor's arms at nine months' gestation. No. Abortion is about women's rights. More essentially, it is about human rights concerning pregnant women. Abortion is about a woman retaining control of her own body. We each have one body in this world that is ours alone to rule. If a woman wants to gratify her sexual desire, that is her choice--and an understandable choice at that. If a woman wants to avoid the onus of a pregnancy, or childbirth, or child, for whatever reason, then that is her choice as well. It really is that simple. Everything else, every other detail, is extraneous to this core.
I'm not sure if you see the point I'm arguing here. I am stating that it is wrong for people to have children they are unprepared and uncapable of raising, and that while abortion is an imperfect solution to the problem of women getting pregnant with children that they (and the father) cannot or should not raise, it is still a valid option. To bring the child to term (after not aborting it) under these circumstances is not a moral act.
-
Try this perspective on for size: what if the father wanted the baby to be born? What if he wanted to take care of it and raise it and love it, even if it was on his own? Or even if he didn't want to raise it on his own, but give it to some loving couple who are dying to have a baby? It's biologically as much his child as hers. But noooo, it's her rights, and it's her[/b] final word. Think that's fair? What do you do in those situations? Say "Sorry buddy, but it's her call. She's the one with the baby, not you." And think of this: what if she was the one who coaxed him into sex? I don't think it's hard to seperate legal bullshit from fairness and some basic understandings of what's "right." We all seem to forget that the reasons behind people having sex is not always "because they really wanted to, hoping to avoid the consequences."
But then again, legalities would state that it's literally a part of her, and basically would call it her legal property, making it hers to do what she wants with it. This would say that indeed, all ideas of child-bearing and child-birth attachments go straight to the women. The rights, along with the responsibilities, go straight to her, regardless of how she got the way she did. Will we rule out the men simply because they aren't carrying the baby, or will we only consider them part of it when throwing blame around for giving this conceived fetus the chance for life and growth?
Think it over. I'm not putting forward an opinion on the matter, just presenting the perspective, cuz I don't think many people even consider it. I didn't until just now. All I'm saying is think it over. Put aside all other legal implications, religious beliefs, prejudices, morals, what-have-you.
Nice question. This reminds me immediately of a custody battle between a divorcing couple. In that case, they try to determine which parent is more fit, and if the kids are old enough, which one they want to live with. In this case, however, it would be weighing the mother's hassle of going through pregnancy against the father's fitness for raising a child. In this case, I'd tend to suspect that the father would win out if he were willing to go through a strong enough court battle.
Now, the question of what should happen. As I said before, abortion isn't painless, but it's still generally better than seeing a pregnancy to term. If the mother is still dead-set against this, I'd raise the possibility of finding a surrogate mother, if possible. (I'm not really sure if this is possible at what--if any--point in the pregnancy, but hopefully medical technology will keep advancing, and it could be at some point.)
But then, let's say that isn't possible. Let's say the mother is legally forced to carry the baby she doesn't want to term. There are a ton of societal actions pregnant mothers aren't supposed to take as they may harm the fetus (drinking, smoking, to name a couple). Seriously, what are the chances of convincing this mother of following those? She may even do them out of spite.
Yeah, unfortunately, it's looking like if surrogacy isn't a possibility, it just isn't practical for the father to legally force the mother to go through with the pregnancy. If he can convince her of it outside of court, however, that's fine.
-
In my eyes, abortion should only be done if the birth can harm or kill the mother and/or child, or if it was rape.
That is how I think about it. Rape is so sad to to our world.
-
Plus, I think that, me talking from a pro abortionist view, that if a woman wants to have an abortion a second time, and both times were just because then that is horrendously wrong.
A woman has the sovereign right to control her own body. This is not a right that can only be used once, like some free pass, and must then be forfeited thereafter. It is a right that continues uninterrupted throughout her life. If that means she has an abortion at some point, fine. Two abortions; fine. Ten thousand abortions; fine. Each abortion is decided on its own merits; there is no cumulative score being kept.
In your world, it may be irresponsible of a woman to be responsible for herself. In the real world, that's absurd.
So...The people that say a fetus isnt alive, are also saying a plant...isnt alive?
What the hell are you talking about?
Z, listen up. Rhetorical maneuvers are supposed to be invisible. Yours stands out like the broadside of the Titanic in front of a big fat iceberg, and it's going to meet with about the same level of success. Plants are alive. Fetuses are alive. That isn't the point. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Indeed, if the unborn were not alive at all, this controversy would not even exist. Whatever razzle-dazzle point you were trying to make, you might want to try making it a different way.
OK, first of all, arent we supposed to learn from our mistakes? Then why, oh why, would she go and have sex again, without any contraceptives? That is just stupidity on her part. We as a community arent here to promote ignorance and let it go on rights. Maybe you didnt read me right, I meant that she got pregnant due to stupidity, her just sleeping around. Not rape, not incest, not pain to her/unborn child. I mean, Hey dude, lets go to my place for some hot coffee, kind of stuff. Some dude lost his license in motorcycle, why not give it back? Hey, he has a right of transport, no? Bad analogy, i know.
Second, if you have been reading, instead of glancing over, then you would find out many arguments in the thread, plus *ahem* all over the world is that the unborn fetus is not alive. Well, i am talking to them. Or is that embryo? Damn.
Also, watching through south park episode Cartmans Mum is still a dirty slut, it said something about there being a law against aborting after the second trimester. Is that still applicable now?
-
Is that what you were getting at with your plant::fetus analogies? That since a plant isn't alive a fetus isn't? If that is the case, you are factually incorrect.
-
No...Im saying if a fetus isnt alive then a plant isnt either
EDIT: Well, i guess a plant isnt dependant, but how does that constitiute as LIFE?
-
(http://www.storycrafter.com/sgfx/1773/necromancer.jpg)
You called?
Really just posted to bring it back up to speed. It never really...died.
Public opinion
Political sides have largely been divided into absolutes. The abortion debate, as such, tends to center around individuals who hold strong positions. However, public opinion varies from poll to poll, country to country, and region to region:
* Australia: In a February 2005 AC Nielsen poll, as reported in The Age, 56% thought the current abortion laws, which generally allow abortion for the sake of life or health, were "about right," 16% want changes in law to make abortion "more accessible," and 17% want changes to make it "less accessible." [54] A 1998 poll, conducted by Roy Morgan Research, asked, "Do you approve of the termination of unwanted pregnancies through surgical abortion?" 65% of the Australians polled stated that they approved of surgical abortion and 25% stated that they disapproved of it. [55]
* Canada: A recent poll of Canadians, conducted in April 2005 by Gallup, found that 52% of those polled want abortion laws to "remain the same," 20% want the laws to be "less strict," and 24% would prefer that the laws become "more strict." An earlier Gallup poll, from December 2001, asked, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances and in what circumstances?" 32% of Canadians responded that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstance, 52% that it should be legal in certain circumstances, and 14% that it should be legal in no circumstances. Canada currently has no laws restricting abortion. See Abortion in Canada.
* Ireland: A 1997 Irish Times/MRBI poll of the Republic of Ireland's electorate found that 18% believe that abortion should never be permitted, 35% that one should be allowed in the event that the woman's life is threatened, 18% if her health is at risk, 28% that "an abortion should be provided to those who need it," and 5% were undecided. [56]
* United Kingdom: An online YouGov/Daily Telegraph poll in August 2005 found that 30% of Britons would back a measure to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks, 19% support a limit of 12 weeks, 9% support a limit of less than 12 weeks, and 25% support maintaining the current limit of 24 weeks. 6% responded that abortion should never be allowed while 2% said it should be permitted throughout the entirety of pregnancy. [57]
* United States: In a January 2006 CBS News poll, which asked, "What is your personal feeling about abortion?", 27% said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases," 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now," 33% said that it should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life," 17% said that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life," and 5% said that it should "never" be permitted. [58] A November 2005 Pew Research Center poll asked "In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?", with 29% indicating they want it overturned, and 65% that they do not. [59]
-
Try this perspective on for size: what if the father wanted the baby to be born? What if he wanted to take care of it and raise it and love it, even if it was on his own? Or even if he didn't want to raise it on his own, but give it to some loving couple who are dying to have a baby? It's biologically as much his child as hers. But noooo, it's her rights, and it's her[/b] final word. Think that's fair? What do you do in those situations? Say "Sorry buddy, but it's her call. She's the one with the baby, not you." And think of this: what if she was the one who coaxed him into sex? I don't think it's hard to seperate legal bullshit from fairness and some basic understandings of what's "right." We all seem to forget that the reasons behind people having sex is not always "because they really wanted to, hoping to avoid the consequences."
But then again, legalities would state that it's literally a part of her, and basically would call it her legal property, making it hers to do what she wants with it. This would say that indeed, all ideas of child-bearing and child-birth attachments go straight to the women. The rights, along with the responsibilities, go straight to her, regardless of how she got the way she did. Will we rule out the men simply because they aren't carrying the baby, or will we only consider them part of it when throwing blame around for giving this conceived fetus the chance for life and growth?
quote]
After reading all of the post, this one stuck out the most because i was just about to type it. I think the problem is that people think about the rights of the women too much in this regard. When it comes to children, women have all of the rights. If the woman wants an abotion, the man has no say so by law, If the man wants the woman to get an abortion, once again the man has no say so. So this is the problem. If the man doesn't want the kid but the woman wants it, the woman will have the kid without the fathers consent. Then to make matters worse, the father has to pay child support to support a kid he doens't want because of the law. So what im saying is if that is allowed to happen, who has more rights, the father or the mother? If you look at it that way, then abortion can be based on the woman having more rights than the baby because she already has more rights than the father when it comes to children.(this comment is to gray about the baby and women having equal rights)
[/quote]
-
So what im saying is if that is allowed to happen, who has more rights, the father or the mother?
The woman is the one who undergoes the pregnancy. The right to terminate or carry to term is exclusively hers. She is welcome to invite friends, family, or other counsel to help her make her decision, but in the end a woman is going to have to be legally free to control her own body, or she effectively becomes the property of the state, and her life is subordinated to that of an unthinking, invisibly small clump of fertilized cells.
No runaround. No nitpicking. No semantics. Pregnancy is a woman's onus, and abortion on demand is her exclusive right.
As for the question of involuntary fathers who would have preferred the woman abort but were overruled, and are then made to pay child support, I can see only two resolutions. The first is the religious solution that fundamentalists always spew to women: If you didn't want the baby, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Pay up.
The more reasonable solution is to impose a new tax (or divert existing tax money) to ease the burden of unwanted children for both women and men, and reduce child support obligations.
It would also help for unwilling soon-to-be fathers to confer with legal counsel while a pregnancy is still in progress and formalize their desire not to have the child. These documents could then be called upon in the future to perhaps ease their child support obligations. But I leave that possibility to better legal minds than mine.
-
The first is the religious solution that fundamentalists always spew to women: If you didn't want the baby, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Pay up.
Take this single sentence, apply it both men women, then live it, and the problem takes care of itself.
-
The first is the religious solution that fundamentalists always spew to women: If you didn't want the baby, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Pay up.
Take this single sentence, apply it both men women, then live it, and the problem takes care of itself.
The problem with that doctrine is that it is unreasonable. It is as unreasonable when applied to men as it is to women. Human adults are inherently sexual creatures, and despite the ravings of <insert monotheistic religion of your choice here>, people will continue to have sex without regards to thoughts of childrearing. It is a pleasurable, natural thing. Christianity has always been at the height of neurotic folly to repress it and make us feel guilty for being what we are.
-
The first is the religious solution that fundamentalists always spew to women: If you didn't want the baby, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Pay up.
Take this single sentence, apply it both men women, then live it, and the problem takes care of itself.
The problem with that doctrine is that it is unreasonable. It is as unreasonable when applied to men as it is to women. Human adults are inherently sexual creatures, and despite the ravings of <insert monotheistic religion of your choice here>, people will continue to have sex without regards to thoughts of childrearing. It is a pleasurable, natural thing. Christianity has always been at the height of neurotic folly to repress it and make us feel guilty for being what we are.
And therein lies the problem. Until people accept the fact that the sole biological reason we even have the ability to have sex is produce offspring, they will continue to father/drop kids and then act like abortion is the only solution.
How ever I might fell about abortion (and I do think its wrong. Bite me) I understand that the choice is not up to me,and likewise, not up to the government. Of course it is the woman's right to decide to carry any pregnancy to term or not. The first step on that decision making process, however, ought to occur before she has sex. Why everyone choses to ignore this option out of hand boggles my mind. We (humanity) are supposed to masters of our own fate, capable of conscious thought and not mere slaves to our biological desires. Why not apply this will to the most important thing we do, ie bringing children into the world?
Unreasonable? Bah. Difficult? Hell, yes. Possible? Of course. If a young and otherwise immature teenaged Silvercry could look around and seem all his high school buddies getting knocked up and ruining their lives and make a decision not to put himself in such a position until such time as he could take care of a child, any idiot can. It can be done, and it wont screw you up for life to not have sex until such a point. You'll live. You might make the producers of KY a small fortune in the meantime, but you'll live.
-
I'm actually not sure about the advent of sex from an evolutionary standpoint. It could simply be that the ability to derive pleasure from sex came about by chance and became an extra incentive to reproduce, and the numbers of little slimy proto-people with the "I get pleasure from sex" gene quickly swelled to massive proportions.
Largely, I believe that it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. However, I also believe that people should take some fucking responsibility for their actions if bad shit happens.
The fact that humans are sexual beings is why I support pulling all our troops out of Iraq. This may not make sense right now, but hang on. I support reallocating every last cent of money from our war budget to develop anatomically faithful sex robots in the image of both genders and all races present on this planet, plus Twi'leks and catgirls for those of us who, like me, are freaks and therefore are into that kind of thing. These sex robots should then be sold without restriction to anyone who wants one, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin, or the opinion of their goddamn retarded fundamentalist parents. A top-flight technical support staff comprised of both computer specialists and board-certified medical doctors should be present at all times to deal with any problems, and with all the money these things would make, you'd have no trouble paying them.
Not a very realistic solution, is it? To me, the very fact that it isn't realistic is indicative of a cultural problem (I'm not taking the actual technology into account right now). However, it's no less effective than the abstinence-only doctrine promoted by the Bush administration, and it'd be a better use of our money, to boot, since there's a chance it might actually get results; Japan has made remarkable advances in android tech lately, no doubt because they think like I'm thinking right now.
The adoption system is one solution that actually does have a fairly good track record. Abortion is looked upon by some as a way to escape from responsibility, but quite frankly, if certain responsibilities can be mitigated by technological advance, then I'm all for it; it makes less hardship for society as a whole. The logic that it's bad because it infringes on personal responsibility doesn't hold up; by that logic, they shouldn't use computers, or any technology at all, because it exists solely to make our lives more convenient. Abortion is something of a convenience; it frees those women who don't want the responsibility of a child from having to deal with it.
The separation of church and state should be respected. You're free to believe whatever you want in private, but when you try to legislate based around your own personal beliefs that other people may or may not agree with, you're being immoral by demonstrating that you believe neither in individual choice nor personal responsibility for those hardships that technology can't erase or hasn't figured out how to erase yet.
Abstinence is also a personal choice. If you want to go that route, that's fine. I personally think it's stupid to deprive yourself of the best thing that ever happened to anyone, but if you feel as if you can gain from doing so, that's your choice. However, for people who do not believe that any benefit can be derived from abstinence, it's stupid to try to tell them not to have sex when methods are easily available to resolve any mistakes that may have been made because some douche forgot to put on a rubber.
The only thing I have to say about religion in this instance is the name of a book of the Bible. Yay for the Song of Solomon. That guy knew how to fucking party. Actually, in the original Hebrew, there's no biblical prohibition on sex outside of marriage. Adultery is not, contrary to the insistence of my idiot mother, defined as having sex with someone you aren't married to. It is defined as being in a relationship, and then engaging in the act of sex with someone other than the person/s you're with. If one is not in a relationship, one is incapable of cheating. But regardless of what you feel about whether religion is just a bad thing, period, or has been corrupted by man over the years, it's an undeniable fact that the religious right has repeatedly stood in the way of almost all forms of social progress, and is primarily responsible for the cultural reasons why I can't have sex with a perfect robot facsimile of Natalie Portman, though I can't even imagine all the legal issues that would result from this; you could conceivably bootleg someone's body, having sex with a clone of them without their approval, and I don't think that'd go over too well.
-
I don't like the idea of abortion, but there's two angles where it undeniably gets hairy. My first case...
Woman's risk: There's often the situation where there's a strong/certain chance the mother will die if she tries to continue her pregnancy to term, combined with a negligible, strong, or certain chance the unborn would die as well. There obviously has to has to be some instances where abortion would need to be legal (where both risks of death are certain or nearly certain), but if you still want abortion illegal in general, then you are going to have to come up with some risk threshold/cutoff. It's going to be hard to come up with a fair criteria that doesn't give doctors considerable leeway.
Of course, that may not be enough to make you give up, so let's consider my other angle. The following quote was thrown around: "If you didn't want the baby, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place." This retort neglects one serious case...
Rape: It's the scenario where the "choice" of whether to have sex is taken away, and often violently. It's problematic because...
1) Rape is common. You can't just say we will handle it on a case-by-case basis.
2) There would need to be, at a minimum, a rape exception. Without it, all women face the fear of having their career/economic status damned at any moment. Furthermore, rapists would be even more encouraged to continue their practice: their desire of rape isn't to have sex, but to excercise power over someone else, and the lack of a rape exception would give them more room to do damage.
3) You actually have to enforce that rape exception somehow. In particular, you have to decide what strength of evidence there needs to be. I'll open a couple subsections for this:
A) The strongest policy would be to require a rape convinction. Unfortunately, this is impractical for several reasons: One, rape is *hard* to prove in court, and many legit cases will not result in convinction (since you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence simply may not be there; not only do you need physical evidence, but you need to prove that the sex wasn't consensual). Even more, because you do have a rape exception, then the man can use the argument of "It was consensual; she's just accusing me because she wants an abortion," and it'll be hard to disprove it. Rape will become *nearly impossible* to prove, so nearly none of these raped woman will get their abortion.
Also, many criminal cases take a lot time to put together. The baby may already be well-developed or even delivered before the case concludes, and many will argue that you are committing a worse crime by aborting a five month fetus compared to a five day fetus.
B) A weaker threshold would not require the woman to acquire a convinction. Unfortunately, if she doesn't need a convinction, then there's inevitably going to be scenarios where a woman (possibly with accomplices with testimony) that wasn't raped could put together enough evidence to get the abortion but of course would not necessarily need to get anyone convincted in the process. In other words, it's just a matter of putting together a decent rape story/conspiracy to get the abortion without losing any friends.
Point is, any rape exception you may make is going to either be inadequate (A) or loophole-ridden (B).
.
.
.
Seeing as a rape exception (and medical exception) can't be both sufficient and not manipulable, and that not allowing abortions in those cases leads to a terrifying culture for women, we have no choice but to settle for a more relaxed abortion policy. This means uninhibited access to abortion (at least early-term). A moderate ruling based on this idea is Roe v/ Wade: Access is easy early on, but states have the right to make abortion harder late in the pregnancy (if it's in the last trimester, you can just induce an early delivery if you really need to).
Now, some may argue that we should make late-term abortions harder. However, it's worth pointing out they are pretty rare already:
Time in gestation of (legal) abortion:
0-8 weeks: 58% (avg of 7.25% per week)
8-12 weeks: 30% (avg of 7.50% per week)
12-20 weeks: 10.5% (avg of 1.31% per week)
20 weeks - birth (typically ~39 weeks): 1.5% (average of 0.08% per week)
Source (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml), but this data is presented in sentences.
As such, people in practice generally do not take late-term abortion lightly, and legislating a time threshold won't have a major impact; in fact, it may just lead to those people getting their abortions earlier, and you may very well see an *increase* in abortions. Some women that otherwise may go on to deliver may panic and abort out of fear, afraid that something may go wrong during the remainder of the pregnancy and that they won't have that abortion lifeline to save them.
As such, I think our current setup is fine. It's not going to be satisfying, but making it any more restrictive is just going to make things suck.
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
It's perfect if you think about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, there is still a way to reduce abortions without making them illegal: educate teenagers about birth control, and get them access to contraceptives. Studies generally support that this helps. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education#Scientific_study_of_sex_education) Teaching good communication / relationship skills and otherwise empowering teenagers to take control and responsibility in their lives can't hurt either (if you don't address their problems, you allow them to become depressed and more vulnerable to unhealthy/unsafe relationships, which often involve *unprotected* sex).
The fact *many* (albeit far from all) conservatives fight comprehensive sex education shows you that they aren't interested in reducing the number of abortions, but that they absolutely must have their religious dogma enforced by the government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in response to Hadriel, that's hilarious. As for the legal rammifications of sex'ing a robot, I think you may be in the clear as long as the robot remains strictly a program that hasn't crossed the "uncanny valley" that gives the robot the ability to really "think" for itself. After that, it gets hard, because you get into all kinds of sticky "consent" issues.
*grumble*
-
The fact that humans are sexual beings is why I support pulling all our troops out of Iraq. This may not make sense right now, but hang on. I support reallocating every last cent of money from our war budget to develop anatomically faithful sex robots in the image of both genders and all races present on this planet, plus Twi'leks and catgirls for those of us who, like me, are freaks and therefore are into that kind of thing. These sex robots should then be sold without restriction to anyone who wants one, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin, or the opinion of their goddamn retarded fundamentalist parents. A top-flight technical support staff comprised of both computer specialists and board-certified medical doctors should be present at all times to deal with any problems, and with all the money these things would make, you'd have no trouble paying them.
Greatest Idea in History, bar none.
Abstinence is also a personal choice. If you want to go that route, that's fine. I personally think it's stupid to deprive yourself of the best thing that ever happened to anyone, but if you feel as if you can gain from doing so, that's your choice. However, for people who do not believe that any benefit can be derived from abstinence, it's stupid to try to tell them not to have sex when methods are easily available to resolve any mistakes that may have been made because some douche forgot to put on a rubber.
Please. The only thing abstinence denies you is some instant gratification for the sake of potentially much more rewarding gratification later on. Cry me a river.
Though I suppose you're right about it being a personal choice.
Sex is the best thing to happened to anyone? Man, I'd hate it if that were true. Sure its in the top 15, but the best? Not by a long shot.
-
Then name me something better than sex.
-
I'm going to have to call bullshit on the notion that the only biological reason for sex is procreation. This may be true in all but three species, but gues what? We're one of the lucky three. The health benefits of sex are numerous, and apply both to body and mind. Sure, there is the risk of STDs, particularly if you are foolish in your sexual endeavors, but everything you do carries risk. I go out and walk about four miles a day. I cross a lot of streets, often at night. My odds of getting hit by a car go up drastically next to if I had sat at home guzzling soda and chips. Hell, it gets cold up here, and rains a lot. I could catch a cold, or slip and take a fall. Concrete and gravity will beat me, every time. Also, although crime is very low where I live, there is always the chance of being acosted by a violent and dangerous criminal. That's no good at all. That said, which is the healthier choice?
-
Hadriel, now I have seen it all. I have officially reached the Far Side of the Internet.
As for things that are better than sex, I proudly present Josh's Great Municipal List of the Five Best Feelings in the World. In order, they are:
5. Sneezing.
4. Sex.
3. A full stomach.
2. Post-exercise euphoria.
1. Stretching. And I'm not talking about that wimpy warmup stretching. I'm talking about how you've been sitting around for a few hours reading a good book, then stand up and stretch all your limbs out as far as they'll go. Best darn feeling in the world.
Any disagreement with the List is blasphemy, and asking why it's blasphemy, is heresy.
-
And of course, leaving the kingdom of J is apostasy. Makes sense.
Map of the world time:
EDIT: Damn dial up users...*shakes fist*
(http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/4223/abortionlawsmap1bw.th.png) (http://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?image=abortionlawsmap1bw.png)
-
That's a handy map. Interesting coincidence, too, that most of the world is evenly split between healthy blue and that icky red. And I didn't know Ireland was so far behind the times. They need to get their asses in gear. Well, actually I guess getting their asses in gear has never been the problem. It's time for them to get their asses into the 21st century.
Oh, and you ought to downsize that picture to thumbnail-size. Mr. GrayLensman--aka, "Mr. Tenpixel"--is pretty adamant about not corrupting the margins or giving our dial-up Compendiumites the indigestion, and your pic is big enough to do both.
-
And of course, leaving the kingdom of J is apostasy. Makes sense.
Map of the world time:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png
That's an great picture, but since it is so large, I changed it to a link. 8)
Edit: Never mind. Thank you, BZ.
-
Whoop...just changed it to a thumbnail...funny how forums work.
Anyways, have you noticed how the "Red" (communist?) countries are countries that were in the past conquered by the Islamic Empire, or neighbours to? Of course, strangely enough, many of the countries were more recently conquered by either the French or the British...
-
Strangely, looking at that picture crashes my web-browser. Firefox is fine, though. Better submit a bug report.
-
What web browser were you using? And wow, someone actually sends bug reports! Or am I the only one who doesn't?
-
I use Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org/).
-
I use Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org/).
And from the peanut gallery comes that inevitable shout, "Why?"
-
Because, as we all know, and to quote the Bible: "Coz hes hardcore moit!"
-
Since we're already off-topic, check out my bug report: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124407.
-
Hadriel, you are my new God. Praise you and your ingenius, hilarious ideas.
I do agree with Silver on this. Abortion should be legal, but we should also help spread the idea of responsibility to the idiots of this country. Course, as RD stated, we shouldn't be stupid enough to keep such a tightly-wound expectation of complete responsibiliity. Since that wouldn't be living. I'm breathing right now. I'm taking a risk in many ways, just by being awake and staring at a computer screen...oh well.
-
The Great Silvercry concedes the point. Abstinence in an option, but its not for everyone. I just wish it wasn't universally dismissed out of hand.
Now, lets talk about what really matters: Hadriel's sex bot idea. I mean, its freaking brilliant. It solves everything. Know what? They should make them modular some how. Get board with taking a Twi'leks to bed every night? Upgrade her to a Orion slave girl instead. I'm sold.
-
Haven't you guys seen Futurama? If humans had sex with robots, it would mean the end of our species.
-
Meh, we had a good run. Lets give a new species a chance. Like maybe dolphins. That would be cool.
-
We don't need to have sex with robots for the dolphins to take over. Hasn't anyone watched Simpsons? They'll attack us!
Now, the whole Sexbot idea...unless they make it uber realistic ("yes...yes...yes..." isn't what I am looking for) and very soft, I doubt I'll really get into it. That is why I'm not a necrophiliac.
Really, I believe, in my opinion, the yellow nations to be the best.
-
I use Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org/).
And from the peanut gallery comes that inevitable shout, "Why?"
It's more standard compliant than any other browser, except for Safari, which it shares it's parser/renderer with.
-
Futurama sucks. Sex bots rule. Abstinence is sad.
-
What's so sad about abstinence? I don't plan hon having sex before marriage.
-
You are still planning on having sex.
-
To me, the thing that's really sad about abstinence is that, often, it is taught as part of a religious framework which holds that sex is sinful and thus by our sexuality humans are inherently flawed. It mentally corrupts people who can't bridge the gap between one of their most innate drives versus this artificial religious ideal. That's sad.
As a lifestyle choice, there's nothing wrong with abstinence. As a tool of repression, it is a harmful and shameful instrument of theocratic tyranny.
-
...I love sex. The whole idea of sex is awesome. The idea (*holds up hand* I swear this has no basis in the fact that I follow God's law) of "sluthood" and "whoreness" is not so awesome.
-
...I love sex. The whole idea of sex is awesome. The idea (*holds up hand* I swear this has no basis in the fact that I follow God's law) of "sluthood" and "whoreness" is not so awesome.
Are you applying these labels to women only, or to anyone who participates in sex?
-
Anyone. I realize that slut pretty much means a woman who is promiscuous, but my intention was for everyone.
-
Anyone. I realize that slut pretty much means a woman who is promiscuous, but my intention was for everyone.
Good. Then you will live to see another day. ^_^
And with that, I retire for the night!
-
Phew! I thought, when you gave that reply, that you were probably red in the face, shattered wine glass all over the floor, animals giving warning signs for a hurricane...luckily I replied quick :D
-
Phew! I thought, when you gave that reply, that you were probably red in the face, shattered wine glass all over the floor, animals giving warning signs for a hurricane...luckily I replied quick :D
He's on edge about that, I presume, because he believes women and men alike should be treated equally (what a novel idea!) As such, if you're going to call a woman some names because she does certain things, then you better be doing the same to a man who does the same/reciprocal things. Of course, many people don't do this and thus put out a double standard. He *really* hates it.
It's a pet peeve of mine as well, so I understood what was happening as that sequence of posts unfolded.
***
There are reasons for abstaining that are more "sane" than religion. Sex outside of a committed relationship does entail a degree of risks: your partner may carry STDs and may not let you know about them (not necessarily out of deceit; sometimes they just don't know), and a condom, even when it works, won't protect against everything. Similarly, unless you stay away from vaginal sex, you've got to remember condoms break, and men can't verify their partners are properly using other contraception (which rarely can still fail as well). For people who believe abortion is wrong (whether or not they expect the law to enforce it), a woman may find that risk to be unacceptable, and a man does not want to risk putting that burden of choice on his partner (and it's even worse when she has no choice).
When you get into a committed relationship, then you're reasonably sure neither of you have had sex lately, so any STDs you have should show up in testing. So you get tested, and then you can engage when you're ready for that.
Besides, if your relationship can't hold up for, let's say, at least six months without sex, what makes you think it can hold up sixty years *with* sex?
:roll:
-
I agree with Maelstrom... if all you live for is sex, thats just sad... If all you see in a person of the other sex is, hmmm they look sexy, thats just sad... If you think that you will enjoy a lifetime with them, you better hope they are just as clueless as you.
-
Don't worry Maelstorm, I know Josh's limits well...too well *puts hand on head and shakes head* I can never sleep without the lights on ever again...
-
I think it's well-documented on the Compendium that, if there is anything that can make me turn into the Incredible Hulk, it's sexism.
Urrr! Josh SMASH!
But fortunately that isn't necessary here. Anyhow, another thing to note about abstinence is that it need not be absolute. There are degrees of restraint between sex every time you can have it versus no sex at all until marriage. Most of us in a sexual relationship regularly abstain, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Various and sundry, these reasons can vary as widely as the horizon, ranging from anything such as not feeling in the mood, to wanting to spend your time doing something else, to not feeling the requisite trust or readiness, to not wanting to take advantage of somebody, to being chased by grizzly bears. When you can think about abstinence outside the confines of the narrow religious version of absolute abstinence for moral reasons, the practice becomes much more applicable in everyday life.
-
The thing about no sex until marriage concept is that it is not that bad. First of all it makes us stronger :wink: Secondly, it makes us have sex with the one we love. Thirdly, like some random said before me, it makes you only have one partner, which limits the chance of any STD's.
Contrary to what many think, sexism makes me VERY mad. Racism, however, makes me absoutely sick (having much experience, being for one, having ancestory from the Subcontinent, and two being very dark skinned) and I believe should be punished as the same as treason :P
-
The thing about no sex until marriage concept is that it is not that bad. First of all it makes us stronger :wink:
Except that it doesn't. Sex is good for your body.
Secondly, it makes us have sex with the one we love.
Except that it doesn't. Marriage doesn't neccesitate love, nor does love neccesitate marriage.
Thirdly, like some random said before me, it makes you only have one partner, which limits the chance of any STD's.
Assuming that your partner is faithful, and had no STDs before marrying you. Remember, sex isn't the only way you can get most of these diseases.
-
The thing about no sex until marriage concept is that it is not that bad. First of all it makes us stronger :wink:
Except that it doesn't. Sex is good for your body.
I didn't mean physically.
Secondly, it makes us have sex with the one we love.
Except that it doesn't. Marriage doesn't neccesitate love, nor does love neccesitate marriage.
I meant marriage as in a trust bonded love marriage.
Thirdly, like some random said before me, it makes you only have one partner, which limits the chance of any STD's.
Assuming that your partner is faithful, and had no STDs before marrying you. Remember, sex isn't the only way you can get most of these diseases.
I said "limits". And it does. Well, if you are faithful and don't get married but have one partner like my friends mum, then thats cool too.
-
The thing about no sex until marriage concept is that it is not that bad. First of all it makes us stronger :wink:
Except that it doesn't. Sex is good for your body.
I didn't mean physically.
Oh. Then you're just plain wrong. Or shall I put it like this: You can train to deny yourself what you want. You can certainly get better at it, as you condition yourself. But that doesn't make you stronger willed, and there is nothing magical about sex that makes it a better or worse subject for the exercise. If anything, it's worse, because it requires a second person. Abstience from, say, alcohol, requires more work, as (depending on local laws) you don't have to convince others to aquire it for you.
-
Well ok then, I stand corrected.
-
The thing about no sex until marriage concept is that it is not that bad. First of all it makes us stronger :wink:
Except that it doesn't. Sex is good for your body.
I didn't mean physically.
Oh. Then you're just plain wrong.
As are you. Remember, nearly everything is both good and bad for you in some sense. Abstinence does wonders for your self-control.
-
The thing about no sex until marriage concept is that it is not that bad. First of all it makes us stronger :wink:
Except that it doesn't. Sex is good for your body.
I didn't mean physically.
Oh. Then you're just plain wrong.
As are you. Remember, nearly everything is both good and bad for you in some sense. Abstinence does wonders for your self-control.
As I said, in a more general sense, abstience can help build self control. But sexual abstinence is a poor form to use for this purpose, because you and you alone do not control your sex life.
If I want alcohol, I can go to the store right now, purchase it, come home, and drink it. Nothing to stop me but myself. If I want sex, I have to find a woman to have sex with me, and there is no guarntee of success as with chemical abstinence.
Although honestly, denying yourself something you want simply to deny it is silly. Its better to conisder the consequences of your actions, and make a reasoned decision.
-
Well...you can always get prostitutes! That or with your infinite knowledge, build one of those sexbots...
-
No, I'm pretty sure that if I don't want sex, then I won't have it. No one else besides me makes that decision.
But can you honestly make the claim that I even want sex before marriage?
-
Yes. Yes I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust
-
Yes. Yes I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust
Zeppelin, you and your Wikis have an answer to everything :)
-
I may think someone is pretty or hot, but that doesn't mean that I have a desire to have sex with that person.
-
I may think someone is pretty or hot, but that doesn't mean that I have a desire to have sex with that person.
Yes and no. By definition, these sorts of perceptions are libidinous. Regardless of whether they directly compel you to feel sexual desire for said people in particular, they stir the concept of sex and therefore arouse your sex drive to whatever degree. The dubious religious values which you implicitly flaunt in your sig do not make you immune to the vagaries of the human condition. There is such a thing as aesthetic versus sexual beauty, and, sir, if I may, you have not yet spoken of the former.
The only possible alternative for you is even worse: You may simply be repeating ideas exposed to you by others, without knowing what you are talking about. And for this to be likely, you would either have to be prepubescent, physiologically debilitated, or seriously mentally dysfunctional.
-
No, I'm pretty sure that if I don't want sex, then I won't have it. No one else besides me makes that decision.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. It takes one person to not have sex, you are correct. However, it takes two people to have sex, thus why it is a poor exercise for testing your will. To aquire it requires the consent of another.
-
Regardless of whether they directly compel you to feel sexual desire for said people in particular, they stir the concept of sex and therefore arouse your sex drive to whatever degree.
But I don't consciously desire to have sex with these people, which is the point I was trying to make.
The dubious religious values which you implicitly flaunt in your sig...
I've been around the internet a few times. The majority of it, it seems, considers either Conservatives, Christians, or both to be physical representations of scum. It tires me, quite frankly. Whether or not that sentiment resides on this board as well, I haven't been able to come to a conclusion.
I am not, as one would say, a fundamentalist. I stray from the right-wing in a number of areas, in fact. But that doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people.
Anyway, moving on.
...do not make you immune to the vagaries of the human condition.
Never said it did, did I? All I simply said is that I don't consciously desire premarital sex.
There is such a thing as aesthetic versus sexual beauty, and, sir, if I may, you have not yet spoken of the former.
I'm not sure what you mean by aesthetic versus sexual, and I'm afraid I cannot answer your question unless you explain it a little further.
The only possible alternative for you is even worse: You may simply be repeating ideas exposed to you by others, without knowing what you are talking about. And for this to be likely, you would either have to be prepubescent, physiologically debilitated, or seriously mentally dysfunctional.
None of which are rather flattering, and hopefully none of which are true. Besides, it's not like I'm not attracted to the opposite sex or anything.
And I concede the point, Radical.