The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Advertise here

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old May 17th, 2013, 08:57 AM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid

Advertise here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Are you speaking morally or legally? I'm speaking purely from a legal standpoint, not a moral one. If having a child does not obligate you to donate nonessential organs if they need it, then having sex should not legally obligate you to donating your body for 9 months.
Moral.

Quote:
And besides, if a woman doesn't want a child she'll find a way to abort it. Legalized abortions give safer access to healthcare and that's the important thing. Without it, well, we could have more stories like the OP 8(
Yeah, that's where it becomes greyed for me. I think the laws should do something to prevent home-made abortions / dangerous abortions, but still have limits to when abortion can occur and under what circumstances. But because of these limits, some women / men (if it's the father that doesn't want the kid and is trying to force it down the mom's throat) will take alternate measures, resulting in horror stories. It's happened all throughout history with coat hangers, beatings, etc. There were posters around a few hundred years ago about home-made abortions and how many women died, typically due to infection.

It's awful, really.

But as I said, I think that if it can be proven that the mother (or father) were irresponsible about the conception, they should be legally obligated to carry to term and then have the option of adoption. There are a lot of families who would love a child because of infertility reasons, hysterectomies, etc. so it wouldn't be that hard to do. I know a bunch of adopted kids just growing up, and that's in a small town. One's mother was fifteen when she gave birth, but he was adopted into a really nice family the same day. The case was the same for another friend of mine whose adoptive parents drove 4h away to get her from the agency.

Being pregnant is incumbering and a lot of work, but it shouldn't happen (like I said, condoms + birth control + morning-after pill (or maybe even the "hook," too, since that can all be combined!) if both parties are very careful about sex. There's still a risk for it, but everything together pretty much drops it to 0.001%, following data we learnt in secondary (percentages are chances of it "failing," and not conception itself):

- Birth Control: 0.01%
- Wrongly Placed Condom: 25%
- Condom (In General): ~7%
- The "Hook": 0.01%
- Spermicide Additive: 15%
- Morning-After Pill: ~8% (longer you wait, more chance of failure)

Used all together [properly]? You really shouldn't fall pregnant, lest a freak accident occurs.

And if you realllyyy don't want to get pregnant, you'd use all of those measures, other than maybe the "Hook" because it might cost a lot pending which country you live in. The fact that all of these are openly available to women now (the pill being the reason for augmented promiscuity in our generation to begin with...) makes me believe that there's no reason to become pregnant "accidentally" through consentual intercourse; which is why, in these cases, I think the foetus > mother, since she could've used every resource to avoid the matter... but she didn't.

And if it "costs a lot," then maybe you shouldn't be having sex. Others may argue the government should intervene and lower the costs, but I don't know about that. There's enough education out there esp. with the Internet about sex that teenagers should know the risks. If they can't afford to be safe, then they shouldn't be doing it; however, it's a fact that regardless the risks teenagers will still partake in this kind of behaviour, safely or unsafely, which is why I also think the government's intervention is a grey area.

I'm pretty much stuck between how much we should "forgive" the mother versus how much personal responsibility the mother should have for herself and her unborn child. I don't want the government holding women's hand to the point where they stop using safety methods altogether and simply resort to abortion because "oh, the poor mother." Balogna.

And if she did, and it still occurred (really shouldn't, though, given that the chance is <0.01% when used together), then that's where it gets messy. Adoption's always an option, though.

x

On another note, kinda weird how if you kill a pregnant woman, it's double-murder in court (because the foetus, in this scenario, is a "human"), but if you give a woman an abortion, it doesn't count. Double-standards much? Once the foetus is wanted, it's a human, but if it's not, it's just a clump of nothing that is easily disposed. Seems the definition of a foetus in terms of its viability as a human is written out of convenience.

Last edited by Belldandy; May 17th, 2013 at 09:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old May 17th, 2013, 09:23 AM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Pokémon Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belldandy View Post
But as I said, I think that if it can be proven that the mother (or father) were irresponsible about the conception, they should be legally obligated to carry to term and then have the option of adoption.
Nope. You cannot be legally forced to carry a pregnancy to term, as it constitutes indentured servitude, among other things.

And you say those other things as if contraception is always readily available to everyone at the drop of a hat, news flash, it's not. And I'm a little perturbed that you'd suggest the quote-unquote "hook" as a valid method of contraception. If that's indeed what I think it is.
__________________

Last edited by Lance; May 17th, 2013 at 09:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28    
Old May 17th, 2013, 09:26 AM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Wait, you said you're talking about morality and then said "legally obligated". So you're not talking about just morality, you're also talking about the legality of it. So answer my question: why are you legally obligated to do this, but not to donate your organs to your children?

You do realize the morning after pill is fairly expensive, right? What of a family living paycheck-to-paycheck that are being responsible but the condom broke and they can't afford the 50-100 dollar sudden expense? Now that woman is probably going to be out of work for a time to have the child, on top of the medical expenses a pregnancy carries with it. When they were perfectly responsible, just poor.

The pill is not the reason for "augmented promiscuity", not that promiscuity is even a bad thing to begin with (you have no right to judge someone else's sex life as long as they're not harming you). As someone who is actively on the pill and have been for years, you're teetering on the edge of being very offensive. Please watch what you say and the judgments you pass on people whose lives you don't know a single thing about.

An abortion is more expensive, invasive, painful, and difficult than birth control. Scare tactics about "women using abortion as birth control" are red herrings. Do you have any evidence that shows a significant amount of women using it as birth control now? Or did you just hear that once and it stuck in your head and now you think it's a legit argument? Because without any evidence, I don't see how you can even express this as a problem when every logical argument points to it not making sense.

Yes, it's also not murder for you not to donate your organs to someone who needs an organ and then they die, but it is murder if you kill them. Funny how that works. My body is my own. I am under no obligation of any kind to let a person leech off of my organs, my blood, my nourishment, my womb, for any period of time. If the fetus can't survive outside of my womb, that does not mean it's my responsibility to donate my womb to the fetus; that means that it's unfortunate that it can't survive but I have the right to decide what is using my body, human or not.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #29    
Old May 17th, 2013, 09:43 AM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
What Gosnell did was an abortion. They were late-term abortions. The procedure that is used to abort a child that late in the pregnancy is called intact dilation and extraction, which us pro-lifers call "partial-birth abortion" because it requires the fetus to be partially removed from the uterus. It's spinal cord is then severed while it is still in the uterus.

In other words, if the spinal cord is severed while the fetus's head had yet to emerge from the uterus, then it's an abortion. If it's head has emerged, then it's murder. The difference is a mere couple of inches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogles View Post
The sad thing is that abortion shouldn't be a question between "murdering" a "baby" or not. Rather, it should be a question on if a woman has the right to control what's happening in her body or not. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that pregnancy and childbirth is actually a really tiring and invasive process. I'm a man and I don't think I could ever handle carrying a baby for nine months. Carrying a child isn't pretty and if a woman doesn't think she can handle it, she should have the choice to get an abortion.

I mean I don't really like the thought of abortion, but I recognize that a) As a man it really isn't my decision and I can't tell a woman what to do with her body and b) A woman should have the right to opt out of having her own body completely invaded for nine months.

And besides, if a woman doesn't want a child she'll find a way to abort it. Legalized abortions give safer access to healthcare and that's the important thing. Without it, well, we could have more stories like the OP 8(
Pro-choicers see it as a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but I see that as fallacious because there is a second body involved: the child's. Babies aren't alien invaders. Babies aren't a punishment. Babies are bundles of joy! The woman chose to opt-in by assuming the risk that she may become pregnant when she decided to have sex.

And why shouldn't the father have any say in it? He'll be held legally responsible for the mother's failure to get an abortion for the next 18 years, and morally responsible for the rest of his life!

And besides, there are ways to get rid of the child without killing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Are you speaking morally or legally? I'm speaking purely from a legal standpoint, not a moral one. If having a child does not obligate you to donate nonessential organs if they need it, then having sex should not legally obligate you to donating your body for 9 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Nope. You cannot be legally forced to carry a pregnancy to term, as it constitutes indentured servitude, among other things.
The funny thing is, the law won't allow the father to say that he didn't want to have a child to escape being held legally responsible for the child for the next 18 years of his life. The court will tell him "You assumed the risk that you may become a father when you chose to have sex with this woman".

Why should we hold men responsible for the choices that they make, but not women? How is that not indentured servitude? That sounds pretty sexist to me.

Last edited by FreakyLocz14; May 17th, 2013 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30    
Old May 17th, 2013, 10:00 AM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
You sure use a lot of punishment language for someone who doesn't think of babies as punishment.

If a woman does not want to give her body up and risk her health for the sake of another person, "full human being" or no, she has no obligation to. It is that simple. The fact that the child requires her to go through extreme risk and harm to her body and life (look at all those businesspeople that are elbowed out of their jobs due to pregnancy) to survive is not relevant, because there are plenty of adult people that would survive if someone decided they were going to hook themselves up to the person and donate their organs. Yet most people don't, and they are not legally obligated to. So those people die. Is it unfortunate that they died because no one donated an organ to them? Yes. Does it make the millions of people in the immediate vicinity who could have murderers? No. If the child can survive without the unwilling womb of the mother, then good luck kid! Be free! If it can't, then it's unfortunate but, just like all organ donations, completely legal to refuse.

The child, human or not, has no right to lay claim to my body and use me as he pleases just because he would die otherwise. Just like no adult human has a right to lay claim to my body and use me as he pleases, regardless of consequences.

As much as people want to claim it, having sex is not signing a contract in semen. Just like if I ride a motorcycle and get in an accident, the hospital has no right to say "you know, she chose to take that risk, so I think I won't reattach her hand so she learns her lesson". Or "while I'm in there, might as well take her kidney and give it to this dying man, she wouldn't be in surgery if she didn't get into an accident on her risky motorcycle".

And men are irrelevant to this. Back to the original point I made about organ donation to a person - if a mother does not want to donate part of her liver to her daughter and the father is not compatible, that does not mean that the father is able to legally force her to do it because he wants his daughter to live. The father has no control over the woman's body as well - no one has a right to a person's body except the person. Just like one person can't force another person to use their body for anything, a man can't force a woman to use her body to have a child and he can't force her to not use her body to have a child. When men start having children, they can make this choice on their own, as they will be using their own bodies. Women's bodies are not objects that can be owned by the men in their lives; they are under the sole jurisdiction of the woman.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #31    
Old May 17th, 2013, 10:44 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belldandy View Post
But as I said, I think that if it can be proven that the mother (or father) were irresponsible about the conception, they should be legally obligated to carry to term and then have the option of adoption.
So if a man is irresponsible a woman should have to stay pregnant? What exactly do you mean by "irresponsible?" I'm trying to think of a situation where a man could be irresponsible that doesn't involve some kind of force or deception, but nothing is coming to mind so I can only conclude that it's inhumane to say a woman should be obligated to stay pregnant because of a man's irresponsibility. I mean, if a man takes advantage of a woman who's, say, unable to give consent then it's rape and no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy caused by a rape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
having sex is not signing a contract in semen
I think this is the best thing I've read in this thread so far. It's pretty evocative and really gets to the heart of the argument over responsibility when it comes to having sex. When people agree to have sex they're agreeing to have sex, not to reproducing or anything else. If a couple talks about having kids and intentionally has sex to reproduce and then later one of them changes their mind then I can see there being a case because both parties agreed to that in the first place.

Any time we do anything with any risk involved we're allowed to take steps to mitigate the negative effects even if something bad happens. So, let's say I play sports and I fall and hurt myself. We don't say "Sorry, you'll just have to live with that laceration because you knew the risks."

Even when we're presented with an opportunity to do something "good" (and I'm not conceding that having babies are always good) we don't have to go through with those either. If there's an injured animal on the road we don't have to help it. We may want to, but it might look dangerous, or we might need to get to work so we don't get fired and be unable to support our families, or we might be driving late at night and be worried about stopping on some seemingly deserted road. Point is, there are mitigating factors.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #32    
Old May 17th, 2013, 12:14 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
You sure use a lot of punishment language for someone who doesn't think of babies as punishment.

If a woman does not want to give her body up and risk her health for the sake of another person, "full human being" or no, she has no obligation to. It is that simple. The fact that the child requires her to go through extreme risk and harm to her body and life (look at all those businesspeople that are elbowed out of their jobs due to pregnancy) to survive is not relevant, because there are plenty of adult people that would survive if someone decided they were going to hook themselves up to the person and donate their organs. Yet most people don't, and they are not legally obligated to. So those people die. Is it unfortunate that they died because no one donated an organ to them? Yes. Does it make the millions of people in the immediate vicinity who could have murderers? No. If the child can survive without the unwilling womb of the mother, then good luck kid! Be free! If it can't, then it's unfortunate but, just like all organ donations, completely legal to refuse.

The child, human or not, has no right to lay claim to my body and use me as he pleases just because he would die otherwise. Just like no adult human has a right to lay claim to my body and use me as he pleases, regardless of consequences.

As much as people want to claim it, having sex is not signing a contract in semen. Just like if I ride a motorcycle and get in an accident, the hospital has no right to say "you know, she chose to take that risk, so I think I won't reattach her hand so she learns her lesson". Or "while I'm in there, might as well take her kidney and give it to this dying man, she wouldn't be in surgery if she didn't get into an accident on her risky motorcycle".

And men are irrelevant to this. Back to the original point I made about organ donation to a person - if a mother does not want to donate part of her liver to her daughter and the father is not compatible, that does not mean that the father is able to legally force her to do it because he wants his daughter to live. The father has no control over the woman's body as well - no one has a right to a person's body except the person. Just like one person can't force another person to use their body for anything, a man can't force a woman to use her body to have a child and he can't force her to not use her body to have a child. When men start having children, they can make this choice on their own, as they will be using their own bodies. Women's bodies are not objects that can be owned by the men in their lives; they are under the sole jurisdiction of the woman.
Equating a pregnancy with an organ transplant is laughable. Organ transplants require invasive surgery, while pregnancy is a completely natural procedure. Pregnancy is not invasive because the child has been in the woman's her entire life in the form of an egg. Women's bodies are designed to get pregnant and give birth. They're not designed to accept organs from another person.

You dodged my point about men. It's relevant because it illustrates a double standard. The radical feminists argue that not allowing women to have abortions forces them to become unintended mothers, so they must have a way to avoid that, yet the very same people demand that men be held legally responsible for their unwanted children.

Let's turn the tables. Say the woman decides to keep the baby, but the man isn't ready to be a father. Should be able to renounce any and all rights and responsibilities to the child? After all, as our Socialist-in-Chief says, "if you make a mistake, you shouldn't have to be punished with a baby", and unwanted babies are indentured servitude, like Live says.
Reply With Quote
  #33    
Old May 17th, 2013, 12:56 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Pregnancy is far more invasive than an organ transplant, had much longer side effects, and messes up your life much more than an organ transplant. You're right, they're not the same. For a woman that does not want a child, a pregnancy is much, much worse. :)

The radical feminists argue what I'm telling you right now - that women have a right to their own bodies. It has nothing to do with men because men cannot get pregnant. I don't know how you aren't understanding this; it is about a woman's right to choose who uses her body and for what purposes it is used. It has nothing to do with being a mother or being a father and everything to do with personal bodily rights.

You didn't understand Live's point about indentured servitude. The child being born is not indentured servitude. The child using your body against your will is indentured servitude. I don't currently know the laws on parents with children they don't want, so I can't comment on that and it's completely irrelevant to the issue of women's bodily rights.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #34    
Old May 17th, 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Although I support abortion, I agree with Locz, It - When considering its ultimate purpose, that is not wishing to have, care, or provide for a child, - really is sexist.

You have a male who doesn't want to care and provide (Or lacks the means to do so) for a child? He's a dead-beat *******.
You have a female who doesn't want to care and provide (Or lacks the means to do so) for a child? She's pro-choice.

While you can say that it's not the same as the woman sacrifices much to give birth to the child, so does the father. According to society, who is to care for the child? The mother. According to society, who is to provide for them both? The father. Having a child is a shared sacrifice - We shouldn't give one person a out, and ignore the other. Either neither should have a out, or both of them should.

Anyway,

__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape

Last edited by Mr. X; May 17th, 2013 at 02:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35    
Old May 17th, 2013, 02:55 PM
Moogles's Avatar
Moogles
better than u
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dalhousie University
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
Babies aren't alien invaders.
I'm pretty sure they're the definition of a parasite. They can't survive on their own therefor they take nutrients from the host body (which is a completely natural process but still). They are invasive to a woman's body and if you can't see that then you're blind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
The woman chose to opt-in by assuming the risk that she may become pregnant when she decided to have sex.
"Don't have sex AT ALL unless you're prepared to carry a child you don't want" have fun telling that one to women everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
And why shouldn't the father have any say in it? He'll be held legally responsible for the mother's failure to get an abortion for the next 18 years, and morally responsible for the rest of his life!
Because in the end, it should be the woman's decision. A man can't understand the sort of impact that a child has on someone's body. There is no sort of physical trauma that can equate the feeling of being pregnant. Men simply aren't able to understand the complexities that goes inside the woman's body.

Now I believe that a woman should probably talk to her significant other about having an abortion, since it would be theoretically their child. I think it's just the polite thing to do to tell your partner. However, it should only be her decision and nobody should shame her for going against the man's wishes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
And besides, there are ways to get rid of the child without killing it.
Which is something I would prefer to happen. However, I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with her body. That would be so terribly rude of me.
__________________
Me. I am Moogles... The Elusive Chanteur

Quote:
Honestly, Moogles, your posts are so nigh impossible to understand that I cannot help but just scratch my head. I know you’re trying to be clever and cute with your outright… pitiful writing style, but I’ll… try to tackle whatever drivel you said.
Reply With Quote
  #36    
Old May 17th, 2013, 03:00 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
I see you didn't read the thread, as I completely disagree that this is relevant at the most basic level of abortion. When we focus on this as a benchmark, we obfuscate the issue, which is: human being or not, should a woman be legally forced to donate her organs to another creature for 9 months? Just like no one is legally obligated to ever donate a nonessential organ to a family member, no one should be legally obligated to donate their body to a child, potential or otherwise.
If they're pregnant through no fault of their own, rape or incest or anything else, no they shouldn't be forced to carry. Same if it is medically unsafe to either the mother or child.

I have no problem with birth control. A quick search on the Planned Parenthood website brings up some twenty or so different forms of birth control. Abortion isn't listed as one and I don't think it should be. I think it should be used for the situations I described above or other such dire or unfortunate situations, on the advice of the woman's doctor.

But, to be clear, I describe an ideal situation or guideline. Not the reality, and I do not wish to alter that reality. I think a woman should be able to choose (although, I'd at least hope that if you're in a loving relationship with your partner you would at least have a discussion with them, for politeness' sake - with the ultimate call still being that of the woman). I'd just prefer if it weren't used as a form of birth control. ...like, for a really poor analogy, I think everyone should wash their hands before they eat in all situations. Ideal situation. But, that doesn't happen. I don't think they should be forced to wash their hands.

Anyway, it's not a disease. It isn't spontaneous. You have unprotected sex, you may get pregnant. You've had twenty other opportunities to have protected sex and significantly increase your chances of not getting pregnant, if not altogether eliminating the possibility. If you have unprotected sex, willingly, you shouldn't be forced to carry. But I'd think you have basically signed the paper work for inviting a tenant in, so to speak. Not a surprise. If you've willingly had unprotected sex, you've willingly allowed for the possibility of getting pregnant. You shouldn't be forced to carry, no. But there were also a number of faster and easier methods you could have done beforehand. It should be a last resort, but still possible. Really, I just wish people were smarter about how they go about things if they don't want a child in the first place.

And I think the question of when there is life or the potential for life is valid. If there's a point where it can feel pain or it is viable outside the womb, why not have that period be off limits to elective abortions (still valid for medical emergencies, say). You can still have an abortion prior to that point and its still a lot of time to do it within.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; May 17th, 2013 at 03:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37    
Old May 17th, 2013, 03:04 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
Although I support abortion, I agree with Locz, It - When considering its ultimate purpose, that is not wishing to have, care, or provide for a child, - really is sexist.

You have a male who doesn't want to care and provide (Or lacks the means to do so) for a child? He's a dead-beat *******.
You have a female who doesn't want to care and provide (Or lacks the means to do so) for a child? She's pro-choice.

While you can say that it's not the same as the woman sacrifices much to give birth to the child, so does the father. According to society, who is to care for the child? The mother. According to society, who is to provide for them both? The father. Having a child is a shared sacrifice - We shouldn't give one person a out, and ignore the other. Either neither should have a out, or both of them should.
It is not sexist in that a woman is not free to walk away from an already born child that the man wishes to keep. Just like she would have to pay child support if she walked away, so would he. It is a unique situation in pregnancy in that men cannot get pregnant. Therefore, giving them rights in pregnancy is literally the man dictating to the woman how she uses her body. That's very illegal and very immoral at its most base level.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #38    
Old May 17th, 2013, 03:16 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
It is not sexist in that a woman is not free to walk away from an already born child that the man wishes to keep. Just like she would have to pay child support if she walked away, so would he. It is a unique situation in pregnancy in that men cannot get pregnant. Therefore, giving them rights in pregnancy is literally the man dictating to the woman how she uses her body. That's very illegal and very immoral at its most base level.
The man cannot get pregnant, but he certainly contributed to the pregnancy.

And, I don't understand your argument. You compare it to parents walking out after birth to show how it is okay. But, either parent is able to do that. During pregnancy, only one can. So how is it the same?

And the man shouldn't dictate. But he can be involved. Like many other decisions couples make. Where should we go for dinner tonight? Should we get a dog? Do you like this colour paint for the wall? You work together, you gather input and information, and whoever the more interested party is makes the decision based on that. Again, not a requirement. But I think its... nicer?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39    
Old May 17th, 2013, 03:22 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
It is not sexist in that a woman is not free to walk away from an already born child that the man wishes to keep. Just like she would have to pay child support if she walked away, so would he. It is a unique situation in pregnancy in that men cannot get pregnant. Therefore, giving them rights in pregnancy is literally the man dictating to the woman how she uses her body. That's very illegal and very immoral at its most base level.
I'm sorry - I've completely forgotten that some women can, for no reason whatsoever, suddenly become pregnant.

Both play a part in a pregnancy. Both should be given as close to equivalent options as possible.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #40    
Old May 17th, 2013, 03:31 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Feel free to insert "potential" before any instance of child, mother, or father in this post, it's implied but I didn't want to be redundant

Because both scenarios deal with a born child that is not living by using a woman's bodily resources as his own. When the child is born, if either parent walks away, the parent is responsible (unless they both agree to put it up for adoption, obviously). When the child is not born, the person who is allowing the child to use her body to develop calls the shots, because it is her body. Just like if my best friend/child/brother/whatever was dying because my boyfriend hit him with a car and needed a kidney and my boyfriend was compatible, I still would not be able to legally force him to donate his kidney. Although the situation was his fault. Morally, he should. Legally, it's his body and I have no right to dictate how he uses it.

Of course I agree that if both parents can, they should be involved in the decision. The question is how that would work out legally. The father should not have the legal power to force the mother to carry a child to term, because that would be the father dictating to the mother how to use her own body and telling her that she must donate her body to the child. Morally, the father, if she's not a victim of incest or rape, should have a very important say in the decision. Legally, there is no way to implement that without there being a scenario where the father forces the mother to use her body the way he wants her to.

I think there's a moral/legal disconnect here. I'm not arguing that all women should use abortion as birth control or that all women should make their choices without consulting the fathers of the children. What I am saying is that legally, it is impossible to make a law like this that will not legally allow men to dictate how women use their bodies, which is a fundamental right. And just as I have explained numerous times, there is no other situation in which because you did something legal, you are legally obligated to use your body a certain way or allow someone else to use your body a certain way. If there are any counter-examples you can come up with, they would be welcome. The only time you would lose bodily autonomy in the US (speaking from these laws since I'm obviously not well versed in others) is either if you broke the law or you are a vegetable, in which case bodily autonomy is taken from you only because you are incapable of making decisions.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #41    
Old May 17th, 2013, 03:55 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
I think there's a moral/legal disconnect here. I'm not arguing that all women should use abortion as birth control or that all women should make their choices without consulting the fathers of the children. What I am saying is that legally, it is impossible to make a law like this that will not legally allow men to dictate how women use their bodies, which is a fundamental right.
Fair enough. I may have some minor legal objections that in the bigger picture wouldn't amount to much, but most of what I've been saying is more of a moral or logical argument.

Back to the initial thread topic... would the verdict have been different somewhere else?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42    
Old May 17th, 2013, 08:37 PM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
Quote:
I mean, if a man takes advantage of a woman who's, say, unable to give consent then it's rape and no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy caused by a rape.
Of course not. That was part of the big exception list I had written in my very first post (including unable to finance a child, mental health problems, physical risks involved in the pregnancy (mother may die), abusive environment (drugs, violence, assault), etc.)

The only reason you shouldn't be allowed to abort really is if you were irresponsible. What constitutes irresponsible? Not using birth control methods, esp. condoms (when they are readily available at clinics for free). That's pretty much saying, "I might get pregnant, but whatever. I'm consenting to sex and I know what may happen." The risk is acknowledged when birth control is not used; the woman then acknowledges the risk and should take responsibility for what happens because of those risks i.e. conception and giving birth. Adoption is always an option after that point.

And for Livewire, the "hook" is a small insert that some women choose to use long-term. It's inserted into the uterus where, to my understanding, it removes the lining where an embryo would otherwise implant itself. This causes even fertilized eggs to disintegrate because they cannot latch onto the side of the uterus. It is not painful, from what I've heard, and few people experience complications from the implant itself. The name itself is very crude for the topic, though. Just think of it as disrupting the lining, thus disabling pregnancies to occur. Kinda like how pills disrupt hormone levels and reduce the chance of becoming pregnant; same idea, but the "hook" lasts long-term.

I already acknowledged, too, that some of these methods cost a bit, but if you can't afford it, you should be reassessing sex altogether. That said, telling teenagers to not have sex is like telling bees not to collect honey or the waves not to crash and disturb the sand. It's going to happen anyway. That's where the government should come in and reassess how they finance birth control for teenagers, young adults, etc. and make it more accessible so that abortions do not have to occur due to being irresponsible (at least, not as often).

Also, the two parties involved - male and female - are responsible for their actions, and as I've mentioned before, if one or the other doesn't want to use protection properly, a) the act should not be committed, b) whoever is being immature needs to grow up before engaging in sex, or c) if none of the above, maybe reconsider the relationship altogether.

IMO a woman or a man who is not honest about birth control or who purposefully avoids it / does not want to use it, and they know that it is not the time to become pregnant / father a child or that the other individual does not want to be pregnant / father a child, then whoever is thinking of being irresponsible by avoiding contraceptive - the man or the woman - has no respect for the other person in the relationship.

I've heard of men who don't use contraceptive on purpose and the woman falls pregnant. That's a common story, but there's the other side of the coin: the woman wants to get pregnant but the man doesn't want to father a child. I have a family member who pulled a stunt on her significant other, saying she was on the "pill" but wasn't, and she got pregnant against the other person's wishes. Why should he be responsible for it when he was but a sperm donor, really? All these stories about "Boohoo daddy's not paying support." My mother never paid my dad support for her four kids - two were his, and two were my mother's (one the result of cheating)! It's an uncommon story, a single father raising the kids, but it should still receive the same attention. I hate all this "victim" stuff some moms pull. Like someone else said, I think the matter is extremely sexist and biased in favour of the mother. The father has no rights / is of no importance.

Anyway. Maybe roaming a bit off-topic.

Basically, both men and women need to take responsibility for their actions. There are methods of contraceptive out there, some of which are free. School, the Internet, youth groups, etc. are sources of information, if needed. A woman has 100% the right to abort if she was raped, cannot financially support the child, is under eighteen years of age (hand-in-hand with finances, really), is homeless, is mentally unfit, or the pregnancy risks to hurt or kill the mother during the term / at birth. The government should protect the foetus' rights in the case where basically, the woman or man decided to not use contraceptive and conceive, looking to abortion as a last-minute contraceptive. They should be held responsible and accountable for their actions in these cases, unless they fall under the above categories (not a legal adult (<18), unfit, homeless... Read list ^).

Also, I don't find any of this to be rude, impolite or offensive. I'm not a man instructing women how to use their bodies; I am a woman who shares a common viewpoint about it, even lenient about circumstances. You (& your significant other) didn't use the information given / use contraceptive / visit the clinic for free condoms. You (& your significant other) screwed up. You and your significant other are responsible for the result. On a perhaps unscaled point, if you fail a test because you didn't study, then sucks to be you; deal with it because you're at fault for that. You didn't ask questions, study, or do your homework. The two scenarios are incomparable in "degree," but hold the same moral at the end: if you mess up, take responsibility. Doesn't matter what it is. You're accountable. Just a hard way to learn a life lesson.

Also, tossing this in there: I don't judge women who choose to abort. I have no right to judge them. I can have my own opinion, and I can voice it (not to her face particularly, because it might hurt her feelings). I'd be friends with anyone, pro-choice or whatever. Doesn't matter to me. It won't change how I feel about the topic lol and I won't try to change their standpoint because they have every right to their opinion, just as you guys do. All I'm doing is explaining how I see it and in no way am I preaching or targeting anyone, telling them they're bad people or w/e because of their choice / having aborted / anything I just have a strong opinion that conflicts with others', and that's OK.

Just proves my point from earlier that there can never be abortion laws or "limits" that appeals to or pleases everyone.
__________________
FC: 4699-7283-5972; IGN: Irène, Belldandy
My Bloggy
My Trade Reviews
My Trade Thread
Breedject Sign-Up Thread
Friend Safari: Munna, Gothorita, Espurr
Native Scatterbugs: Polar, Ocean, Sun

Last edited by Belldandy; May 17th, 2013 at 08:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43    
Old May 17th, 2013, 08:56 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
If they should be held accountable for their actions, why give a out for those who don't have the financial means to care for the child? The same for those who find themselves homeless? Why shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions?

Same to those underaged - Should they be given a out, or should this be a life lesson to them? You know, teaching them that all actions have consequences, and that they will be held accountable for them?

For these cases, the child can still, and by law should be required to, be given up for adoption.

As you given it, risks the mother during pregnancy or birth, this would apply to every pregnancy. While modern medical technology has made it safer, it is still entirely possible for a otherwise healthy woman to die giving birth. Rare yes, but still possible. Rather broad statement, but as all pregnancies pose a health risk, does this mean that you support all abortions? Or is in in just cases where their is a higher then average risk?
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #44    
Old May 17th, 2013, 09:28 PM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
Higher than average. A health risk is moreso that the mother has an abnormal risk of dying from giving birth or carrying to term. Maybe she has a tumor. Maybe she has an underlying condition that will cause her a great deal of pain and internal damage. Maybe she's a hemophiliac and has a very, very high chance of bleeding out and dying while giving birth because of it. It is not the average joe; it is whether or not a medical condition exists that would make the pregnancy have a higher-than-normal chance of causing ill to the mother.

Yes, mothers can still die giving birth, regardless medical advances, but the "risk to the mother" part is, again, focused on pre-existing conditions that will aggravate the pregnancy or cause further risk to the mother.

x

As for why there are certain conditions, that's where leniency comes in (and where you try to reason with others, really). Some people want all abortions banned, and I don't agree with that. Even with the "conditions" I've set and agree with, I'd prefer carrying to term and adopting instead; however, I've tried to come up with scenarios where abortions may be more "understandable" based on the environment and situation.

A homeless person could not afford a child if they cannot even clothe themselves. This is not a good living condition for a newborn and can be a basis for the CPS to come and remove the child altogether. The environment needs to be good to benefit the child's development. If you cannot guarantee that it will have food, then aborting it (or, preferably, adopting it out) is an option. It would not be healthy for the child to live in such conditions.

Teenagers are, unfortunately, "wild" nowadays. Parents are afraid of their kids, so they can walk all over them and do what they want; which is why, perhaps, they are more promiscuous and act "maturer" than they are. Hormones, too, and media only worsen the scenario. It's pretty much a given that in North American society, teenagers are going to engage in sex and you can't stop them from doing it. If they get pregnant, then, who raises the kid? The parents shouldn't be responsible for their child and their child's child, yet the law would force them to at least keep caring for their offspring (and therefore, the new baby, too, since it'd be living in the same quarters). That's not fair.

I also think that for a teenager, forcing them to be a mother when they aren't ready only makes them a waste of space in society (not being productive, rarely ever finish secondary / post-secondary as a result). The kid who wanted to be a doctor now won't be because she's a mom at fifteen. This regresses society. There's no excuse regardless, information and condoms being readily available, but they are given the benefit of "ignorance" until they become legal adults.

In all honesty, though, if not for the fact the parents would get the short end of their stick (supporting child & grandchild), I'd want teens to carry to term, too. I just feel bad for the parents of pregnant teens and the fact that tax dollars are wasted on supporting them on welfare. Teen moms actually achieving something is uncommon (pregnancy is difficult and raising a child is full-time, and the government doesn't make daycare cheap or readily available) while if they got a "second chance" through abortion, we might have more doctors available (or other professionals due to actually completing post-secondary).

The conditions I listed, other than rape, unfit mentality / psychology, and physical issues in birth, are somewhat-agree & somewhat-don't, but enough that I'd be OK with those scenarios if ever it were the case. I'm trying to be lenient and open to how others might feel, esp. pro-choice individuals (in all scenarios). I think there are limits and I try to be reasonable with pro-choice arguments and achieve limits that are "sound" or "reasonable" to me, even if I'd prefer if everyone carried to term. That's just not possible / a reality so I have to alter my view around the fact that banning abortions outright just won't work - but how can we make it work, but still have reasonable limits. That's what that list is. Not too restrictive and gives a second chance to people who cannot support themselves (and where a child would be a very hard burden) or who were ignorant (even with all the information and clinics out there) and made bad choices.

I'm a bit less forgiving for adults, who ought to know better. Which is why I put the <18 limit. Sure, if you're 19, you're probably not ready for a kid either, but I think you're old enough to make good, mature, sound decisions about sex at that point that conceiving shouldn't even be an issue, much less abortion (unless, you know, you were raped or something).

Conditions = Just not trying to be too narrow-minded in a society where a complete ban on abortions is really not realistic.
__________________
FC: 4699-7283-5972; IGN: Irène, Belldandy
My Bloggy
My Trade Reviews
My Trade Thread
Breedject Sign-Up Thread
Friend Safari: Munna, Gothorita, Espurr
Native Scatterbugs: Polar, Ocean, Sun
Reply With Quote
  #45    
Old May 18th, 2013, 04:11 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
Eye-Catching
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: US of Eh
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
I think this discussion becomes much more productive if we examine it from a societal standpoint rather than on the individual whether we are condemning or condoning anyone's actions. Regardless of whether the behavior is moral is debatable, essentially, we should examine societal gain if we are to either ban, allow, and to which extent regarding abortion practices. The reason why we have personal rights is that it either does not directly affect other people or that those personal rights are for the betterment of society, which must be measured objectively.

We cannot simply state that abortion is wrong in many or most cases because a human could have been brought into the world. If one is to argue against abortion, please demonstrate how abortion, which is elected by the woman bearing the fetus, negatively affects society, and conversely, how banning woman from having abortions positively affects society.

Thus far, I've only heard abortion is wrong because it is immoral, which is essentially a circular argument. Taking little into account of the economic/security repercussions involved with banning abortions, which I explain briefly in a previous post. Essentially, from the statistics on that post, it is clear that the majority of these women are young, single, and indigent, not yet establishing themselves in careers or otherwise. Thus, having a child would likely inhibit the woman from going to college or sustaining long-term employment, and then, we either supplement the costs of childcare through social welfare funding (which increases tax burdens or inflation) or we simply do not assist the woman and child; this would incite riot and violent political dissidence. As a society, it is objectively "moral" to do that which benefits the whole of society best. Thus, it would make most logical moral sense, from this point alone, that our society allow abortions to be employed. That is just one of many statistics and logical arguments to be made for the case in support of abortion.

Can anyone in support of banning/limiting abortions explicate an objectively moral argument? If so, I'd genuinely would like to hear why.
__________________

Retrodex Sprites
|D&D Forum|??? (coming soon)
Reply With Quote
  #46    
Old May 20th, 2013, 12:03 PM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
Quote:
Essentially, from the statistics on that post, it is clear that the majority of these women are young, single, and indigent, not yet establishing themselves in careers or otherwise. Thus, having a child would likely inhibit the woman from going to college or sustaining long-term employment, and then, we either supplement the costs of childcare through social welfare funding (which increases tax burdens or inflation) or we simply do not assist the woman and child; this would incite riot and violent political dissidence.
And I think this is a sound argument for allowing abortions to occur. There is no societal gain if people just reap the benefits of welfare, etc. It would deter society not to allow a woman planning to be a doctor or a working professional (and who has the mindset, ambition and potential to become such a professional) simply because she or her partner messed up and she got pregnant.

For society, this is a good thing, and it makes sense, but even if it does make sense logically (as to promote more working professionals, say, and less taxes going towards avoidable situations / causes), it's unfortunate for the foetus in the sole case where the mother was pregnant due to irresponsible sex and now said foetus is a "burden" to her even though in a way, she chose that route for herself. Now, it becomes grey if the father was irresponsible and it's now screwing up the woman's life because he put the condom on (or something similar), but again there are ways for women to prevent it without relying on the man for "protection" all the time via condoms. That's foolish.

Now, something against abortion may be the demographic transition model. Canadian society has steadily become "less babies" and "more old people," making the possibility of higher taxes per Canadian a valid idea for the future (as to cover the taxes lost by an abundance of non-tax paying (retired) seniors). Putting limits and "conditions" on abortions would allow our society to go from the curious and new "Stage Five" (an unknown, new stage where the population is not replenishing itself and there are tons of seniors - think upsidedown pine tree) back to the healthy mid-Stage Two and Stage Three (my idea of growing population, but not expontentially as seen typically in Stage Two).

Conditions and limits would allow for Canada (and the States, probably, given we share similar histories) to jump from decreasing / stable population, pending year of data, to slowly increasing, which IMO I think is healthy. It would definitely relieve the impending tax burden when war veterans and "baby boom" kids (and the subsequent mini "baby boom") all retire. Who will replace that tax revenue? The much lower working adult population that's left. That's more tax per person, and it'll definitely make life harder (and reduce maybe the frequency or availability of social services i.e. road work, hospitals, schools, "free" systems like health care) for the average individual.



Between 2-3 will allow us to at least replenish that population, but the obscure Stage Five is awful. Stage Four is dubbed "contracting" = decreasing population... Stage Five is worse than that due to a sudden jump in a few decades of lots of babies to not even two babies per person.

Quote:
1.59 children born/woman (2012 est.)
From: http://www.indexmundi.com/canada/dem...s_profile.html

That's not even high enough to replace the mother and father. If some cases of abortions were restricted by limits and conditions (case-by-case) we might be able to change that at least.

Then there's the idea of: do we even need more humans? 7,000,000,000 is enough, too.

So much to think about and consider.

Maybe I'll do a T-Chart later, but I think I've made the conditions (from my own standpoint) known above i.e. abortion is OK in cases of rape, financial instability (can't support kid), <18... Among the many others.
__________________
FC: 4699-7283-5972; IGN: Irène, Belldandy
My Bloggy
My Trade Reviews
My Trade Thread
Breedject Sign-Up Thread
Friend Safari: Munna, Gothorita, Espurr
Native Scatterbugs: Polar, Ocean, Sun

Last edited by Belldandy; May 20th, 2013 at 12:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47    
Old May 21st, 2013, 07:14 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
I disagree with the conviction entirely. In or out, he performed the same function. I do not see any moral wrongdoing on his part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
Why should we hold men responsible for the choices that they make, but not women? How is that not indentured servitude? That sounds pretty sexist to me.
And your solution is to make both people indentured servants? How is that any better?

I generally hold the belief that if someone believes they are not ready to be a parent, it's probably true. If someone has good reason not to bring a child into the world, I see no problem with allowing an abortion. I'm not going to get into the discussion about exactly when we should draw the line, but I do believe that abortion has a net positive effect. I see no problem with allowing it in most cases, ethically speaking.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 04:27 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.