future_doc Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 A woman who has one or more abortions is not a tramp and a fetus is not considered a human being and has no rights under our law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojoluvsu2 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 I think George Carlin said it best: "Pro-life is anti-woman" As much as I think that abortion should always be the very last option, legal and safe abortions should be available to woman should they choose. The original debate here, really, was should a woman's reason for getting an abortion (ie. a female fetus vs a male fetus) matter? Of course I don't like the idea of aborting a perfectly healthy baby for that reason when the parents are just going to try again and again until they get their boy. But should that reason be a limiting factor to an abortion being available? I would strongly consider aborting a fetus with Down's Syndrome. Others might think that that is an amoral act because people with DS can be quite functional and live a somewhat fulfilling life. Yet it still is my right to make that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostintime Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Lol this is so awesome, a woman who has multiple abortions is a tramp. Great, and she must just plan better, I mean, if she's going to be "playing around" (who cares if her partner is also playing around, it's just by the lottery that he gets to do that for free), then she should just plan better. It's just as simple as that. Have fun saying that to your future patients. Or perhaps those poor people won't even get to hear that if they get the whole moral high horse speech about not being a tramp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylamonkey Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 ... A woman who frivolously gets pregnant can just go ahead and get that abortion. As I've stated earlier, coitus has consequences unique to each sex (male/female), and it simply happens to be that females must plan a little better. There's no getting around this fact. The risks are there if you want to take them without planning effectively with the male partner. Being in a good society means that we don't have clinics dedicated to tramps needing abortions every now and then, in my opinion. It also involves rising above laziness and taking control of matters in your hands. Nobody said doing good and having a high standard of morality was going to be easy.... And how would you respond to a woman who becomes pregnant through rape or incest, or some other power imbalance she has no control over? Or is she just not supposed to get herself into that situation in the first place? I do not agree that women who access abortions are tramps, and you might be surprised what kind of "tramp" you see in the local abortion clinic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 And how would you respond to a woman who becomes pregnant through rape or incest, or some other power imbalance she has no control over? Or is she just not supposed to get herself into that situation in the first place? I do not agree that women who access abortions are tramps, and you might be surprised what kind of "tramp" you see in the local abortion clinic. Agree. Also even contraception isn't 100% reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Second Daniel Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 The rights of an unborn human do not trump those of the mother that has been afflicted with carrying it. Our society dictates this, like it or not. I happen to like it. I see people throwing around the term straw man a lot. I don't think you know what it means. Anyway, lets go to town: 1. You said nature intended for a woman to be pregnant. Well, nature intends for a lot of things that we have totally overcome. I made that rebuttal clear. Not a straw man in any case. Your argument has holes. 2. A fetus has no rights in this world. It is an organ until it is birthed from the womb. Human rights is universal, religion should be individual. 3. You called women who desire multiple abortions tramps. That is an unfair judgment fraught with anger and sanctimoniousness. 4. Nonetheless, you say society is worse by allowing abortions. If we define worse as more criminal, keep in mind the only statistically significant intervention that curbed urban crime rates in the USA was abortion. 5. The oft quoted but very seldomly followed most important words of Jesus go something like this: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Sure you're religious, and sure you disagree with abortion and people that have them, but stop being so judgmental. Anyway, I hate getting into debates with religious people, so I'm just going to stop there. At no point did I claim to be religious. This theme of me being religious seems to dominate your thought processes simply because I made indirect mention to nature/life/God. If you must know, and I think you should, I am not religious and disapprove of religious organization. Yes, nature may intend for snow to fall on us every winter, but it's a no-brainer to get shelter. Not everything that nature intends requires complex ethical judgements like abortion does (you wouldn't think twice if it rains or snows to go inside, because the ethical implications are simply not present but not so with complex issues). So ethics must sometimes temper what nature 'intends'- we need to use discretion and not become lazy at certain times. Your condescending and aggressive tone makes me question who really is 'fraught with anger'. I will admit this is a complicated issue, and that universal principles do not exist. Of course cases like rape need to be assessed in a totally different way. Abortions need to be looked at by viewing at which stage the developing fetus is at. In the case of rape, the individual can seek medical intervention immediately, within hours, which doesn't pose a problem. But a rigid set of laws that say something like a developing child still has no rights the moment before birth is simply not right. That's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylamonkey Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 ... medically unnecessary procedure and there is like 50% of people who oppose it. Source for this number? Some people might say that this targets the poor and they'll resort to other means. The only thing I have to say about that is, "too bad." The government has no right to take money from me for someone else's convenience unless it somehow is absolutely necessary for society or the economy to function (education, basic healthcare, police, etc.). And the idea that thousands of women will kill themselves is over-exaggerating. Go back and read the article I posted earlier in this thread, last page, near the top.There's a reason physicians support keeping abortion legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Further to this thread, and because it's not fully "dead" yet, and because some of you might be interested, here's an article about the "way it was" for women who wanted an abortion before it was legal. http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was?page=1 I'll confess the whole issue makes me uncomfortable- it really creates some cognitive dissonance between my opinion that both girls and boys should have protection and my pro-reproductive-choice position. This artice should have been posted with a warning. I feel sick now lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 And no punishment for the guy eh? He can just freely go ahead and besides the risk of STI's, it's all fun and games and just because of the 50/50 lottery, it makes it okay that he doesn't have to bear the consequences of pregnancy/delivery/beyond? And that it's fair that too bad so sad for the girl who should've thought of these things before "indulging herself" and now she should face the music, whereas the guy who probably thought the same thing, doesn't make the same risks to his health and moral/ethical obligations? So, if women bare all the responsibility/risk would it be fair to say that birth control is absolutely the woman's responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 no........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 no........ Why not? If the person I quoted says all the risk is born by the woman then why wouldn't it be reasonable that they should bare the full responsibility for birth control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 both are responsible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 both are responsible Apparently not according to what i quoted or the views, it seems, of Brooksbane. The only thing it would seem men are responsible for is a financial one. They have the the ability to walk away while only being required to write a cheque. Whereas women don't if they get pregnant. Women have to deal with the consequence so since the consequence is so great why shouldn't she be responsible for birth control? Why is the view that it should be a shared responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostintime Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 There are so many inconsistencies with your response I'm not even going to bother. But first of all, why don't you check the law, murderers who kill pregnant women ARE charged with only taking one life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Apparently not according to what i quoted or the views, it seems, of Brooksbane. The only thing it would seem men are responsible for is a financial one. They have the the ability to walk away while only being required to write a cheque. Whereas women don't if they get pregnant. Women have to deal with the consequence so since the consequence is so great why shouldn't she be responsible for birth control? Why is the view that it should be a shared responsibility? We each are entitled to our own opinion and it seems there are many here. Both sexes make purposeful choices for which there are consequences for which they are both responsible - my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Second Daniel Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Apparently not according to what i quoted or the views, it seems, of Brooksbane. The only thing it would seem men are responsible for is a financial one. They have the the ability to walk away while only being required to write a cheque. Whereas women don't if they get pregnant. Women have to deal with the consequence so since the consequence is so great why shouldn't she be responsible for birth control? Why is the view that it should be a shared responsibility? both parties engage in the act and both are therefore responsible for the outcome, however there is definitely a bit more pressure on the woman due to her biological capabilities. If the woman desires to abort, then she must do it VERY early, right after conception- asap. The price for this non-essential abortion should be split among both parties (the male bears his part of the burden). Similarly, if she decides to have the baby go to full term, then the male will help with child support payments (again, bearing his burden). It seems fair because deterrence is there for both sides if both sides choose to be irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Roe vs. Wade turns 39 today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Some say life begins at 40. Some ask when does life begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojoluvsu2 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Abortion will NEVER be criminalized in Canada but taxpayers shouldn't fund it unless its a therapeutic abortion. Otherwise, its a medically unnecessary procedure and there is like 50% of people who oppose it. Some people might say that this targets the poor and they'll resort to other means. The only thing I have to say about that is, "too bad." The government has no right to take money from me for someone else's convenience unless it somehow is absolutely necessary for society or the economy to function (education, basic healthcare, police, etc.). And the idea that thousands of women will kill themselves is over-exaggerating. If your argument is strictly economical, the cost of raising that unwanted child, potentially using welfare and foster care depending on the situation of the mother, will be a much greater strain on your tax dollars than a one time abortion. As was mentioned before (read Freakonomics) the single greatest reduction in crime in the states occurred approximately 16 years after roe.v.wade, and the associated tax payers contribution to prosecuting and incarcerating those individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.