R
Rando
Guest
Nor am I saying that the woman should disregard the man's judgement and opinion, *in a situation where the man is available and willing to offer insight and support*.
But, how many woman who get an abortion are in stable relationship in which the father can be relied on? Not very many, as a couple in that circumstance are more likely to have proper birth control, planning and maturity to avoid such a situation in the first place.
But, how many woman who get an abortion are in stable relationship in which the father can be relied on? Not very many, as a couple in that circumstance are more likely to have proper birth control, planning and maturity to avoid such a situation in the first place.
if you can provide figures from numerous sources supporting your statement. Because (hopefully) as we all know:
1. The only sure birth control is abstinence (and then we wouldn't have this situation).
2. Planning is not a sure thing
3. I don't think "maturity" and "getting pregnant" are mutually exclusive.
In other words, "the best-laid plans can run afoul" (however I mangled THAT quote).
Putting aside the argument of when people should be having sex, I believe there are many cases when a "typical, college educated/couple" can get pregnant and not want kids at that time. It probably isn't even limited to people in their 20's but also beyond.
BUT, in the situations you mentioned, I agree that since the mother is the only one around, it should be her decision.
1. The only sure birth control is abstinence (and then we wouldn't have this situation).
2. Planning is not a sure thing
3. I don't think "maturity" and "getting pregnant" are mutually exclusive.
In other words, "the best-laid plans can run afoul" (however I mangled THAT quote).
Putting aside the argument of when people should be having sex, I believe there are many cases when a "typical, college educated/couple" can get pregnant and not want kids at that time. It probably isn't even limited to people in their 20's but also beyond.
BUT, in the situations you mentioned, I agree that since the mother is the only one around, it should be her decision.
R
Rando
Guest
Agreed.
But, as I said, "more likely"...
As you said, no birth control is 100% effective except for abstanence, but few practice that as a way of birth control, and accidents and unplanned pregnancies do happen to every one regarless of demographics.
But, as I said, "more likely"...
As you said, no birth control is 100% effective except for abstanence, but few practice that as a way of birth control, and accidents and unplanned pregnancies do happen to every one regarless of demographics.
C
Cateran Emperor
Guest
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is not the woman's right. It is the child's rights in question. Justifying abortion by saying it's a fetus doesn't mean that the child is not a human, he still is. Life, Liberty, and Property; those are the things our country was based upon. Everyone seems to have forgotten that adoption is always an option. If you don't want to be a mother to the child, then at least let a sterile female have the chance. If you wan't nothing to do with it, then you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. The child is your responsibility, whether you like the fact or not.
And this is assuming that ALL pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.... 
And you want your long-lost kid to come find out 20, 30 years later to bring up those memories... unwanted pregnancies or no (because there's plenty of cases of voluntary adoptions where the birth parents do NOT want to be found....)
Since you want to have control over another person's decisions, I suppose you want control over how to raise the kid too, right? Like whether they should breastfeed or bottle feed, whether they should have spankings or time-outs, whether they MUST be potty-trained by age 2 or can take their own time...
please, a family's decision is JUST that, THEIR decision. No one else should be butting in.
And you want your long-lost kid to come find out 20, 30 years later to bring up those memories... unwanted pregnancies or no (because there's plenty of cases of voluntary adoptions where the birth parents do NOT want to be found....)
Since you want to have control over another person's decisions, I suppose you want control over how to raise the kid too, right? Like whether they should breastfeed or bottle feed, whether they should have spankings or time-outs, whether they MUST be potty-trained by age 2 or can take their own time...
please, a family's decision is JUST that, THEIR decision. No one else should be butting in.
R
Rando
Guest
At this moment I am sitting in a social service office looking at a poster with over 200 abused, neglected and abandoned children waiting on adoptive homes.
Let me say that the phone is not ringing off the hook.
Would you like to ask any of those children what they think of the lot that life has handed them?
Let me say that the phone is not ringing off the hook.
Would you like to ask any of those children what they think of the lot that life has handed them?
B
Baskil
Guest
I mean, like, you know? It's like chlorene in the gene pool.
Seriously, though, it's a very difficult thing to decide which side to be on. Generally, I side with the pro-choice people (I hate the nomenclature for these stances, they're very misleading). However, I can see where people like CE are coming from. I guess it all comes down to this:
Do you think that, for the better life of others, some lives should be aborted?
OR
Do you think that all life is precious?
Personally, I can't decide either way.
Seriously, though, it's a very difficult thing to decide which side to be on. Generally, I side with the pro-choice people (I hate the nomenclature for these stances, they're very misleading). However, I can see where people like CE are coming from. I guess it all comes down to this:
Do you think that, for the better life of others, some lives should be aborted?
OR
Do you think that all life is precious?
Personally, I can't decide either way.
R
Rando
Guest
I do belive that all life is precious, but none more then any other, including that of the unborn when compared to the livelyhood of the mother. And ultimitly, that is who the decision rests on.
C
Cateran Emperor
Guest
Ah, now we're dealing with a whole different creature here. If the mother's life is seriously in danger or in cases of rape/incest, then I would look the other way. I still wouldn't approve, but I'll turn a blind eye to it.
Now Spidey, think of it this way for adopted children: do you honestly think they'd rather be dead? Consider it for a second won't you?
And I frankly highly resent that you think I want to control everyone, I feel just the opposite. I HATE the executive branch of the federal government, it's too impersonal and it doesn't truly hear the people. The only people in the federal government that I respect are the Congress and the Supreme Court. Don't assume that meaning someone's pro-Life means they are control freaks, we're just the opposite. We want everyone to have the right to live their life the way they want with as little government interference as is humanly possible. Think Republican.
Now Spidey, think of it this way for adopted children: do you honestly think they'd rather be dead? Consider it for a second won't you?
And I frankly highly resent that you think I want to control everyone, I feel just the opposite. I HATE the executive branch of the federal government, it's too impersonal and it doesn't truly hear the people. The only people in the federal government that I respect are the Congress and the Supreme Court. Don't assume that meaning someone's pro-Life means they are control freaks, we're just the opposite. We want everyone to have the right to live their life the way they want with as little government interference as is humanly possible. Think Republican.
C
Cateran Emperor
Guest
(uses High School football coach voice) Then go walk it off boy!
R
Riva Iron-Grip
Guest
holy crap. i'm glad that this has taken off, and that magic players are smart. now in a book i am reading my Rob Olby "The Double-Helix" DNA was first recognized as thermonucliec acid. i can't remember why but it was really cool. my personal library(i'm 16) is a stockade of information. you should read that book.
Ah, but CE, you didn't mention rape or incest as being an okay condition when you first posted. You said "they shouldn't be having sex in the first place" or something to that effect. And you were coming across as strictly saying "abortion is a no-no" flat out, with no conditions or anything.
And frankly, yes, I see people with "pro-life" views as control people because they're interfering with other people's business. So it's okay to interfere with another family's family planning? But it just stops at the life part but not the raising the kid part? I disagree... if you're going to go that route you've gotta go the whole way.
You say you're for less government? To me that equates to people making their own choices, which leads to pro-choice on the abortion issue. If there's no laws telling people what they HAVE to do, the opposite is choice, yes?
If the issue IS just life, what about those "religious" (or non-religious) beliefs that medicine is unnatural and nature should just take its course? We're talking about a simple cold or pnemonia that if not treated, could kill somebody (probably exaggerating about the cold, but hopefully you get the idea). There's some sect up in New England whose members are going on trial for manslaughter or something because they failed to take their children to hospitals or give them over the counter medicine.
And how about the case in England that just happened with the two girls who were Siamese twins? If there was no surgery both were going to die. If there was surgery (which there was), one was going to have to be deliberately sacrificed to save the other (the doctors said they did all they could to save the second but it was a pretty much accepted assumtion that she was going to die).
Very iffy situations...
And frankly, yes, I see people with "pro-life" views as control people because they're interfering with other people's business. So it's okay to interfere with another family's family planning? But it just stops at the life part but not the raising the kid part? I disagree... if you're going to go that route you've gotta go the whole way.
You say you're for less government? To me that equates to people making their own choices, which leads to pro-choice on the abortion issue. If there's no laws telling people what they HAVE to do, the opposite is choice, yes?
If the issue IS just life, what about those "religious" (or non-religious) beliefs that medicine is unnatural and nature should just take its course? We're talking about a simple cold or pnemonia that if not treated, could kill somebody (probably exaggerating about the cold, but hopefully you get the idea). There's some sect up in New England whose members are going on trial for manslaughter or something because they failed to take their children to hospitals or give them over the counter medicine.
And how about the case in England that just happened with the two girls who were Siamese twins? If there was no surgery both were going to die. If there was surgery (which there was), one was going to have to be deliberately sacrificed to save the other (the doctors said they did all they could to save the second but it was a pretty much accepted assumtion that she was going to die).
Very iffy situations...
C
Cateran Emperor
Guest
Ah but Spiderman, if pro-Choice means less government then why is first degree murder not legal? After all, the government shouldn't be able to interfere at all.
At this point, before I say anything else that may not be true about you as I still am not really sure where you stand, what do you think the purpose of sex is? Do you believe in family planning? What right do you think the government has to do anything?
At this point, before I say anything else that may not be true about you as I still am not really sure where you stand, what do you think the purpose of sex is? Do you believe in family planning? What right do you think the government has to do anything?
"Why is first degree murder illegal?"
I figured we'd get into this. Let me see if I can write this clearly since this is the kind of thing that's hard to express in a forum:
To me, murder is taking away someone's life without their willing consent. Since that involves infringing on somebody else's "business" (or life, in this case), there has to rules that say that this is NOT okay; i.e. choice is good when it just pertains to yourself and you're not hurting anyone else. Kind of like the discussion going on in the other thread about hatred in the world.
Now, how does this conflict with abortion, where obviously the baby/fetus is not giving consent? It probably goes back to the root of the definition of what is alive or human and what isn't. I guess to me, from what I have read and know, "life" really doesn't begin until birth. I know all about the growing inside the womb and stuff and I'm actually still wobbly about the last trimester, but I'm thinking most abortions happen before then (don't know if that's actually true). I admit it's a fine line and at that point it's rather close, but I feel choice wins out over life.
I sure as heck believe in family planning but realize nothing is safeproof or perfect, hence the need for "backup" plans or ways out. If there was some way to assure that birth control 100% prevents pregnancies, I might think harder on my stance.
Depending on what type of government there is, I would say the government picks up on stuff that individuals cannot handle or control. I probably need to think about this one more depending on what you or others say, since this is pretty broad, coming off of the abortion topic.
I figured we'd get into this. Let me see if I can write this clearly since this is the kind of thing that's hard to express in a forum:
To me, murder is taking away someone's life without their willing consent. Since that involves infringing on somebody else's "business" (or life, in this case), there has to rules that say that this is NOT okay; i.e. choice is good when it just pertains to yourself and you're not hurting anyone else. Kind of like the discussion going on in the other thread about hatred in the world.
Now, how does this conflict with abortion, where obviously the baby/fetus is not giving consent? It probably goes back to the root of the definition of what is alive or human and what isn't. I guess to me, from what I have read and know, "life" really doesn't begin until birth. I know all about the growing inside the womb and stuff and I'm actually still wobbly about the last trimester, but I'm thinking most abortions happen before then (don't know if that's actually true). I admit it's a fine line and at that point it's rather close, but I feel choice wins out over life.
Technically, the purpose of sex is to procreate. But with medical advances and birth control, I feel simply having pleasure or fun and to feel close to your partner has overshadowed it (especially that the human race is in no danger of extinction, as a whole). In other words, with the proper preparation it is okay to have sex without producing a child as the end result.
I sure as heck believe in family planning but realize nothing is safeproof or perfect, hence the need for "backup" plans or ways out. If there was some way to assure that birth control 100% prevents pregnancies, I might think harder on my stance.
Depending on what type of government there is, I would say the government picks up on stuff that individuals cannot handle or control. I probably need to think about this one more depending on what you or others say, since this is pretty broad, coming off of the abortion topic.
A
arachiron
Guest
I personally don't like this whole controversy with abortion. Both sides get so fierce about it. But as someone who might in some really distant future give birth, I agree completely with Spiderman. Although I hate any type of killing, (er, let me refrase that--any type of killing that will not lead to my being supreme world dictator) the government has no right to interfere with the very personal right of the mother. To appease the Pro-Life people: yes life is sacred. Should a mother die of birth complications and be forever unable to support her remaining family (children)? What about terminal, painful diseases that can be passed to her offspring ei. aids?
note: these are only the ramblings of a very strange little maniac
note: these are only the ramblings of a very strange little maniac