|
Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Accident? The pure biological reason for sex is to have the "accident" you're referring to. And as long as sex is "elective," which it is in the case of consensual sex, then the "accident" is elective too. If you don't want to worry about the possibility of having an "accident," electively decide not to have sex. If the possibility of the accident it too great, then don't do it. Even a vasectomy is technically not 100% effective in the case of early sex or spontaneous ductus regeneration. The bottom line is if you're having sex, there's always the chance of getting pregnant, and that's where the responsibility part of sex comes into play.
|
While the pure biological reason for sex is indeed to have that important accident as a species, human kind has gone beyond doing stuff for the sole reason of acting on our primal instincts. Hence the discovery that apart from its use of making babies its also a fun thing to do as are i would guess many other things we do that are remnants of our primal urges that we do today just for fun (that a single one doest come to mind at this moment so i could give an example doesn't mean that there arent any just that im an idiot, ill have to get back to you on that after i get back from work).
In some case abortion would be the responsible thing to do. If you are 18 or under abortion is the most responsible action you cold take. No reason to up your life so early or the unborn baby for that matter. Sure everything could turn out fine but in the real work that doesnt always happen. An ex of mine got pregnant when she was 17 (not mine i swear we broke up a year earlier) and had the baby just after she turned 18. Now i loved that girl, she was fun to be with, smart and hard working. But she did come from what i believe the technical term is a seriously ed up family. Bringing a child into that family was the most irresponsible thing she could have done but she did it anyway because of her ed up parents (only the mom actually, her dad ran away some time ago) and her ed up boyfriend (went ballistic when she told him she didn't want the little bugger, he left her a week after she had the baby mind you).
I haven't seen her for a while after that, more than a year. What i saw then was not the nice smart girl i used to know, but a liquuered up shell of a woman who was forced out of school and into a dead end low pay job to support that stupid kid of hers. By being forced to take responsibility she did the most irresponsible thing she could have, she completely ruined her life and quite possibly the babies life as well and if anyone disagrees with me here im going to ninja kick him in the head (i will fail spectaculary but its the thought that counts)
im so gonna be late for work... |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Just to clarify:
I do not agree with abortion, however, I do not think there should be an outright ban. Even if used as a means of contraception, I do not think they should be banned. However, if you're going into the second half to last third of your pregnancy and then decide to have an abortion, I think it's "too late."
Even if you don't believe a fetus is a human, it is a genetically unique living thing. The closer you get to the end of that 3rd trimester the more human characteristics it gains. By the time a partial birth abortion is performed, it is no different from a premature infant in its basic development other than it is smaller and we don't yet have the technology for it to remain viable outside the uterus. I'm sure that technology will soon be here, and in a horrific few cases of these late-term abortions, the fetus would have been viable outside the mother. (Furthermore, you get into the double standard where the law says a mother killing her fetus is an abortion and legal, whereas if I were to do the same I'd be booked for murder.)
I guess I'm saying that if you don't want to take the responsibility for sex, in this case pregnancy, at least take the responsibility to have an abortion quickly and early. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If that's the case, then surely we shouldn't preach abstinence. Even if we abort the fetus, at least it got to have some life, rather than never having any at all.
Furthermore, that suggests late-term abortions are actually preferable. Seven months of life is better than three, no? |
Think you overreached there just a bit. The question was zero life vs. any life, not varying degrees of life--that's an entirely different question and is much more subjective. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Think of it as an extension of "better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all." |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I just don't see how we can argue that men must take responsibility in the case of a pregnancy, yet be complacent in the event of an unwanted abortion, yet women can opt out of the responsibility when it comes to pregnancy and have the sole decision making power when it comes to abortion. It takes two to tango, and I don't know why it apparently only takes one in the aftermath. |
fine, then go and design a reproductive system whereby the male and the female are equal partners in the baby-making transaction, and then ill give you equal rights and responsibilities. until then, youre out of luck.
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'll also stick by my original point. 99.9% of people, if given the choice would chose a "rough life" over no life at all. If we had a time machine, and could go back however many years to a person's conception, how many would say "yeah, go ahead, abort me?" I'd even choose a short life over no life. |
well, when foetuses have evolved to such an extent to be capable of real thought and answering such complex questions, then we can try out your idea. until then, the unwanted cells are the woman's property, to do with what she wishes. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
fine, then go and design a reproductive system whereby the male and the female are equal partners in the baby-making transaction, and then ill give you equal rights and responsibilities. until then, youre out of luck. |
Yes, damn you biology, damn you to hell. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry that you think women got the short stick on reproductive evolution. No matter what you think it's a non sequitur. Men and women do have equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to making the decision to have sex...I'm asking people to be equally responsible afterwards.
| quote: | | well, when foetuses have evolved to such an extent to be capable of real thought and answering such complex questions, then we can try out your idea. until then, the unwanted cells are the woman's property, to do with what she wishes. |
So by your definition an infant, severely mentally disabled, comatose or the severely senile are also just a bunch of cells since they are incapable of "real thought and answering complex questions?" That's going to rewrite a lot of laws out there. And don't give me the "well, the fetus wouldn't survive outside of the body" line, because an infant wouldn't survive on their own, or any of the other groups I just listed. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Yes, damn you biology, damn you to hell. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry that you think women got the short stick on reproductive evolution. No matter what you think it's a non sequitur. Men and women do have equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to making the decision to have sex...I'm asking people to be equally responsible afterwards. |
no you're not. you're saying men should have equal say in the arrangement, which is just farcical. men don't have equal responsibilities anyway, they can leave whenever they wish. hell, if they decide to leave the country, what exactly can a woman do then? in many nations concepts such as maintenance are quite, quite foreign. so lets not be silly about this shall we?
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
So by your definition an infant, severely mentally disabled, comatose or the severely senile are also just a bunch of cells since they are incapable of "real thought and answering complex questions?" That's going to rewrite a lot of laws out there. And don't give me the "well, the fetus wouldn't survive outside of the body" line, because an infant wouldn't survive on their own, or any of the other groups I just listed. |
honestly man, you can play the pedantic game as much as you like. knock yourself out, really. as far as i care a child isnt a child til its born. i dont care about foetal suffering or stress or any of the other emotional argument the pro-life side try and muddy the waters with. its part of the woman's body, not unlike a tumour. if she doesn't want it anymore, its none of your business. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
its part of the woman's body, not unlike a tumour. if she doesn't want it anymore, its none of your business. |
That's the part I've always felt is utter nonsense. A tumor, or anything else that's part of the body, doesn't exactly have the potential to become a full human being. Note, I avoided the usage of the term life, since that kind of hard to establish. To be specific, at what stage exactly would a [insert prefered term here] qualify to classified as a seperate [still entity dependant on it's mother]. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
To be specific, at what stage exactly would a [insert prefered term here] be qualified to be classified as a seperate entity dependant on it's mother. |
when it comes out kicking and screaming.
but seriously, when it comes to drawing lines in the sand regarding the age of the foetus, i am happy to let that decision fall to the medical community. if its ok for them to abort up until the end of the second trimester, then thats ok for me. if they believe "partial-birth" abortions are safer for the mother, then so be it.
im not really into the semantics on this issue, we could go at it forever. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
when it comes out kicking and screaming.
but seriously, when it comes to drawing lines in the sand regarding the age of the foetus, i am happy to let that decision fall to the medical community. if its ok for them to abort up until the end of the second trimester, then thats ok for me. if they believe "partial-birth" abortions are safer for the mother, then so be it.
im not really into the semantics on this issue, we could go at it forever. |
It's not exactly about sematics really, it's simple based on the fact that there's no real way to determine the answer to that, which is why I've always sort of sat on the fence when it comes to this issue. The only case in which I personally have no issues with abortion is when sex isn't consenqual, during the first trimester, and that's really about it. I still don't have an opinion one way or another in other cases since it's hard to draw the line. Obviously I consider the issue, beyond a certain point, to completely irrelevant when it comes to rights of any gender. And that doesn't really have anything to do with my religious views in case your curious, although I'll admit they probably have some effect on a more subconcious level. But it really has more to do with the fact that there's a lot we simply don't know to excersice that choice under any circumstances. Does that make more sense to you? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Does that make more sense to you? |
more sense than any post you've ever made :p
i support a woman's right to control her body, and i leave the details up to the doctors.
i think you should be against the oppressive state legislating against an individual's freedom of choice :p
i always find it amusing that the NRA lobby and the right-to-lifers tend to be one and the same ;) |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | | no you're not. you're saying men should have equal say in the arrangement, which is just farcical. men don't have equal responsibilities anyway, they can leave whenever they wish. hell, if they decide to leave the country, what exactly can a woman do then? in many nations concepts such as maintenance are quite, quite foreign. so lets not be silly about this shall we? |
I would settle for that a man would have at least some say in the matter and that his point, if valid would have to be considered. After all its his wallet that about to suffer greatly for the next 18 years. Considering thats a damn long time a man should get some say. But if a men will be forced for all eternity to support the little buggers then they should at least have an equal part in the child's life (if they want to of course) if the mother agrees to that or not. I mean seriously, as you describe how some men run out of the country to escape child support, some women keep the kid just to spite the guy that made her pregnant and to get his money while refusing him any contact with the baby. Thats about as ed up as running away. If a man is forced to pay for the damn thing he might as well get something out of that. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
I would settle for that a man would have at least some say in the matter and that his point, if valid would have to be considered. |
well, what do you propose? how do you legislate for the man having a "say" in the matter? the only logical result of such thinking is for a man to be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term, or have an abortion. neither of which is acceptable.
if a man wants a "say" in the life of his child after birth, then whats what custody is all about. not saying its perfect by any strength of the imagination, but there ARE mechanisms to deal with it.
i am in know way sticking up for women that manipulate men via their biology. but at the moment its just something us guys will have to learn to live with.
remember, dont be a fool! wrap your tool :cool: |
|
|
|
|
