RE: Women's Rights! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


StrangerThan -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 5:54:40 AM)

I'm on both sides of the issue. I've supported the right to abortion for a long time, not because I believe in it fundamentally, but because I became a father at 16 and know exactly how long and difficult that road can be. At the same time, I can fully understand why those morally opposed to it do not want their tax dollars going to pay for someone to have one. It is, in their minds, more than condoning murder, but taking part in it. And yes, before some bright soul says the same thing about military matters, I agree that too slips into the same gray area.

There are a lot of great arguments here, but as often as not, pregnancy occurs from the basic reason of not using contraception - though I can stand in there with those who used contraception and still ended up with a little one. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of abortions come from one or both sides not taking the time or the responsibility to use some type of contraception. In that way, most of the pregnancies and the resulting abortions were choices. I think you'd see a much larger portion of the population supporting abortion in cases of rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. It is the rest that sit on that border of bad choices, a lack of responsibility, and the true, occasional accident.




came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 5:57:51 AM)

Men have a duly and a duty to be equal of emotional status as the woman he chose to impregnanted, I agree Strangerthan. It is also the male's right and responsibility to care for and nurture the expectant mother, it is not to be forced. , nor a chore.
I think it has a deeper meaning when she refers to 'real men' and sticking around out of obligation for the 'bitter end' of the pregnancy. But that is elsewhere (earlier).

Men (if abortion is sought) should also be informed of that decision, if not to attempt to change the mind of that mother, then to console.

but
quote:

There are a lot of great arguments here, but as often as not, pregnancy occurs from the basic reason of not using contraception - though I can stand in there with those who used contraception and still ended up with a little one.


that is like saying that loaded guns aren't as dangerous if you only hold it with your toes...all will be ok.

lol, contraception. Fucking causes pregnancy. Simple. The prophylactic you use is just the preventative (safety switch) measure. Faulty switches shouldn't be used as a means to assume the bullet won't be discharged. The main reason for abortions is irresponsible (unplanned) sex, by people who may or may not know eachother.




RCdc -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 5:59:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

quote:

If a womans abortion was considered a medical need - for example - abortion is recommend by medical staff because of medical complications(child is stillborn/mothers life at risk/cancer etc) - or the woman had been raped and reported, later to find she was prenant from said rape, does that make a difference to those who are against state paid abortion? In other words, does the reason make a difference?


not to me, no. But those are hypotheticals and hypothetical babies and health concerns and hypothetical incidents., that subject always arises. State paid or not, free or a nickel each abortion, I don't believe in abortion under any circumstance, so, NO. But, we, live in a society that puts a crisis of one situation over the posibility of 'life'. Most tend to believe in the 'take care of YOU/ME self first' policy. I don't, and that is my right, as a woman and a citizen.

*this talk of medical concerns reminds me of the fact that women have been giving birth for thousands of years ...and then you have the Monty Python episode of the 'machine that goes PINGGG'


Then do you believe in state funded induction of a late term, non fruitful, pregnancy.

the.dark.




RCdc -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:01:43 AM)

Thanks for responding Elisabella.

the.dark.




kittinSol -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:05:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Yes it would make a difference to me - one is a medical necessity the other is a mental health and/or social issue.



That's the biggest hole in your argument. An unwanted pregnancy carries all kinds of mental anguish. Mental health is a health issue. If a healthy woman is transformed into an incubator for a fetus she does not want to carry to term, she may well go fucking bonkers and need years of therapy, or worse.




came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:10:28 AM)

quote:

Then do you believe in state funded induction of a late term, non fruitful, pregnancy.

the.dark.


If that child has passed away by natural causes, and that is proven, yes. In that case, it is no longer the taking of a life.

quote:

If a healthy woman is transformed into an incubator for a fetus she does not want to carry to term, she may well go fucking bonkers and need years of therapy, or worse.


That 'healthy' woman should know then that

sex = possibility of pregnancy.

She also likely knows that

McDonalds = probability of ass getting fat.

if she cannot put one of those priorities over another in her decision making skills...she is beyond therapy.

* I used this example because I know a chick from work who told me about fucking some guy she met outside in a bar lineup then later thought she was pregnant....but ask her if she wants to go to lunch at McD's, she is gasping OMG NO, IT IS FATTENING, and baaad for ya!! lmao *shakes head

*to compare this in some obscure way...lets take the Meth program. City funded meth programs. Some believe 'hell, why should we as taxpayers pay for junkees who started and continued drugs and it is all self-inflicted and now they want us to 'fix them', wean them off slowly from their irresponsible actions???' others, might argue that 'to remove the burden of the junkee being still high OR not coming down slowly, it will save taxpayers in the end'. Either way, it is similar to abortion (in context) because someone is aiding another (via a medical proceedure) that BEGAN as a socially conceptual (even contemplatable/irresponsible) ACT.

Therefore,...if I don't want to end up in an alley or the Dr. Phil house, I don't take up crack for recreational use. Sex as recreation is just great, but hell, be prepared to accept the responsibility if you get a disease or pregnant. You play, you pay. It is like a guy who juggles chainsaws for fun. After being told 'STOP THAT' by any reasonable and rational person, would you really want to pay for his hospital visits over and over and over n over?




RCdc -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:14:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Yes it would make a difference to me - one is a medical necessity the other is a mental health and/or social issue.



That's the biggest hole in your argument. An unwanted pregnancy carries all kinds of mental anguish. Mental health is a health issue. If a healthy woman is transformed into an incubator for a fetus she does not want to carry to term, she may well go fucking bonkers and need years of therapy, or worse.


My question was to ascertain whether this is more an anti abortionist arguement, or one of purely taxation.
I coming from a country where abortion and vasectomies are treated as equally as a broken leg and where medical opinion supports the stance that pregnancy is about mental and physical health, rather than a social concern and even if it was a social concern, similar to obesity - and isn't obesity is still more a medical issue?

Whenever I see this come up over in the states, it's always difficult to seperate that tax issues from religious fervour.  We just do not have that problem here to the same extent.

the.dark.




Elisabella -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:37:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

That's the biggest hole in your argument. An unwanted pregnancy carries all kinds of mental anguish. Mental health is a health issue. If a healthy woman is transformed into an incubator for a fetus she does not want to carry to term, she may well go fucking bonkers and need years of therapy, or worse.


Personally I feel that talk therapy to treat personality issues is different from psychiatry that uses drugs to treat an actual medical (chemical, hormonal, etc) imbalance.

You would have a point if you brought up postpartum depression, except that there is a similar reaction post-abortion if hormonal levels are high enough. Abortion is also a lifechanging event and a woman might be just as likely to suffer mental anguish after termination.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of abortion. WyldHrt made a very interesting argument that made me see that my main issue with this is that I feel carrying the child to term is the "default" response whereas abortion is doing something that goes against the default response. She presented the two choices as equally valid, equally possible options, that choosing to abort is choosing to abort, not "deciding not to carry the pregnancy to term" the same way that having the baby is having the baby and not "choosing not to abort" especially for people who would have never even considered the other option.

That would make it an equally valid medical choice as carrying the child, which of course is covered. My issue is that I don't think it's an equally valid choice, I see casual sex and abortion as a form of sexual bulimia - binge, purge, binge again, you only have to purge if you start to gain weight. Obviously those are my personal opinions, I don't think abortion should be banned just because I think it's nasty, and I realize that it's a necessity, but at the same time I think that fully validating it will keep it a necessity.

Anyway that's veering off topic, but it's the same reasoning - I think abortion should be legal for the public welfare. I also think that the root causes (lol) of needing to have an abortion do need to be addressed as well, and since that's not going to go over well on a site where hedonism is loudly championed, I'll leave it at that.




Elisabella -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:41:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

Men (if abortion is sought) should also be informed of that decision, if not to attempt to change the mind of that mother, then to console.



You know, this is something I really have an issue with. If a man has no desire to pay child support, the courts tell him he has no choice in the matter, that he chose to have sex, that he knew sex could result in pregnancy, and that he has to accept the consequences of his actions by supporting the child he helped to create.

Good luck saying the exact same thing about a woman.




Moonhead -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:45:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

quote:

Then do you believe in state funded induction of a late term, non fruitful, pregnancy.

the.dark.


If that child has passed away by natural causes, and that is proven, yes. In that case, it is no longer the taking of a life.

quote:

If a healthy woman is transformed into an incubator for a fetus she does not want to carry to term, she may well go fucking bonkers and need years of therapy, or worse.


That 'healthy' woman should know then that

sex = possibility of pregnancy.

She also likely knows that

McDonalds = probability of ass getting fat.

if she cannot put one of those priorities over another in her decision making skills...she is beyond therapy.

* I used this example because I know a chick from work who told me about fucking some guy she met outside in a bar lineup then later thought she was pregnant....but ask her if she wants to go to lunch at McD's, she is gasping OMG NO, IT IS FATTENING, and baaad for ya!! lmao *shakes head

*to compare this in some obscure way...lets take the Meth program. City funded meth programs. Some believe 'hell, why should we as taxpayers pay for junkees who started and continued drugs and it is all self-inflicted and now they want us to 'fix them', wean them off slowly from their irresponsible actions???' others, might argue that 'to remove the burden of the junkee being still high OR not coming down slowly, it will save taxpayers in the end'. Either way, it is similar to abortion (in context) because someone is aiding another (via a medical proceedure) that BEGAN as a socially conceptual (even contemplatable/irresponsible) ACT.

Given the poor state of sex education in your country, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there weren't a lot of young girls who had no idea that sex can cause pregnancy. In the bible belt a lot of teens probably think you need an archangel for that...




came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:51:16 AM)

quote:

You know, this is something I really have an issue with. If a man has no desire to pay child support, the courts tell him he has no choice in the matter, that he chose to have sex, that he knew sex could result in pregnancy, and that he has to accept the consequences of his actions by supporting the child he helped to create.

Good luck saying the exact same thing about a woman.


Yes, I get your point lol. Women expect men to be there to hold their hand, fork up funding, but if shit hits the fan and SHE decides to abort, it is of no grave consequence. It is pure BULLSHIT. Double standard all the way.




kittinSol -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:51:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

Whenever I see this come up over in the states, it's always difficult to seperate that tax issues from religious fervour.  We just do not have that problem here to the same extent.



Don't I know it, thedark... and how I miss the pragmatism, at times... *sigh*... the United States are dreadfully behind other Western democracies when it comes to religion interfering with public policy. The abortion "debate" is a living proof of that.




rulemylife -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 6:52:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Look, I really do respect other people's religious beliefs, and I know I'm a bitch for saying this but it really does scare me to think that someone who lets fear of God's wrath determine their political agenda might ever possibly become Commander in Chief of the most powerful army in the world.



I guess you missed that whole Dubya thing.




Elisabella -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:02:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Look, I really do respect other people's religious beliefs, and I know I'm a bitch for saying this but it really does scare me to think that someone who lets fear of God's wrath determine their political agenda might ever possibly become Commander in Chief of the most powerful army in the world.



I guess you missed that whole Dubya thing.



I'm fairly certain his motivations were far more tangible in nature.




VideoAdminSigma -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:04:01 AM)

To all parties interesting in avoiding a long spring moderation.

Womens Rights and its surrounding concerns are at the table.

Various individuals vaginal odor emanations are a subject for Health and Safety, perhaps.

The subject of men's circumcision and everyone's thoughts on that matter would at this point be a separate thread in Off Topic or even Health, unless it is tied either to Political questions or Religious questions, but still a separate thread.

If the catcalling all around the table doesn't cease, there will not be enough penises and vaginas around here to carry on any sort of conversation about those penises and vaginas.

VideoAdminSigma




came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:09:18 AM)

quote:

Various individuals vaginal odor eminations are a subject for Health and Safety, perhaps.

The subject of men's circumcision and everyone's thoughts on that matter would at this point be a separate thread in Off Topic or even Health, unless it is tied either to Political questions or Religious questions, but still a separate thread.


I think I missed some pages , or some stuff was changed??




VideoAdminSigma -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:12:08 AM)

Some posts have been clipped out, yes. We are not going to be heading down that same path again, y'all.

VideoAdminSigma




rulemylife -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:17:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminSigma

To all parties interesting in avoiding a long spring moderation.

Womens Rights and its surrounding concerns are at the table.

Various individuals vaginal odor emanations are a subject for Health and Safety, perhaps.

The subject of men's circumcision and everyone's thoughts on that matter would at this point be a separate thread in Off Topic or even Health, unless it is tied either to Political questions or Religious questions, but still a separate thread.

If the catcalling all around the table doesn't cease, there will not be enough penises and vaginas around here to carry on any sort of conversation about those penises and vaginas.

VideoAdminSigma


Why was this directed at me?

I've only made one post on this thread, and it had nothing to do with circumsion or any of the other things you mentioned.






came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:23:55 AM)

Well, I don't mind convos on the rights of women (even if it pertains to abortion) since that is bound to arise. Anything better would be great. Some topics will never be resolved, for every 4 that come in to defend it, 2 come in , then 6 then blaaa

I don't appreciate living in a world that I have to defend the unborn, the unloved or unwanted, especially online.

[:'(]




VideoAdminSigma -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 8:01:59 AM)

Learn to trim your quotes, please. It is an unneccessary burden on our resources and does not advance the discussion to have deep and untrimmed quotes.

VideoAdminSigma





Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875