Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-08-14 03:22:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6404|'Murka

DesertFox- wrote:

FEOS wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
There's no guarantee you will survive the day. Does that give your life less worth?
I have already been born though. I came closer than most, but ended up living.
That doesn't answer the question, Fox.



Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
There's no guarantee you will survive the day. Does that give your life less worth?
Hey, I'm all for banning abortion if that means that all the pro-lifers will pay for and house all of the unwanted children that would result from it via higher taxes.

    Until you're willing to make that kind of commitment, it's just talk.
Who said anything about banning abortion? There should be alternatives to it (such as better adoption programs).

Shahter wrote:

yeah, but you are forgetting the following little things:
pregnancy practically disables women - for several months at least. each has to postpone her career development and other stuff to bear and give birth to that bloody child. what if she doesn't want to disrupt her life?
also, pregnancy always changes her body - some of those changes may be permanent and outright ugly, some cannot even be fixed with plastic surgery - not to mention the cost of that stuff. what if the woman doesn't want to take that risk?
Then she shouldn't have chosen to engage in unprotected sex (assuming she wasn't raped).

That's honestly one of the weakest and most superficial arguments for abortion I've ever seen...something a 14-year-old girl would argue, tbh.

"Ewww...it'll make me ugly! Kill it!"
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-14 10:21:46
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6674|Disaster Free Zone

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
There's no guarantee you will survive the day. Does that give your life less worth?
Hey, I'm all for banning abortion if that means that all the pro-lifers will pay for and house all of the unwanted children that would result from it via higher taxes.

Until you're willing to make that kind of commitment, it's just talk.
There is more to pregnancy, birth and motherhood then financial strain. Granted it is a big issue but definitely not the only one.

FEOS wrote:

Then she shouldn't have chosen to engage in unprotected sex (assuming she wasn't raped).
I disagree with this statement in its entirety, but I will say, people can and do still get pregnant while engaged in correctly administered protected sex, but from my standpoint that is entirely irrelevant.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-08-14 10:22:36)

2009-08-14 12:53:44
Lai
Member
+186|6144

Shahter wrote:

what if the woman doesn't want to take that risk?
She could have thought of that before concieving the child, unless she was raped in which case abortion should always be an option.

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Abortion is a womans right to her own body, you believe that you have the right to decide what she should do?
No, it is not. It is what the women screamed in the 1970's to spearhead their movement when they had relatively few rights at all. In the 21st century I think we can apply a little nuances. Abortion can not be a woman's right alone, it is also a childs bane and a father's blood.

Nobody here that is against regular abortion denies female equality or her rights as an individual. We are just saying that when a certain decision affects multiple individuals, the rights of all of those affected individuals should be taken into consideration.
2009-08-14 13:00:13
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6729|Salt Lake City

If men could get pregnant abortion rights wouldn't even be in question.
2009-08-14 13:04:49
Lai
Member
+186|6144

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

If men could get pregnant abortion rights wouldn't even be in question.
That doesn't mean it is a good thing.

Also, men might not be able to get pregnant but they still can and are still needed to make babies and that countes too.
2009-08-14 13:12:03
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6729|Salt Lake City

Lai wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

If men could get pregnant abortion rights wouldn't even be in question.
That doesn't mean it is a good thing.

Also, men might not be able to get pregnant but they still can and are still needed to make babies and that countes too.
Uhhhh, men aren't really going to be needed for reproduction any more.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sc … uction/750

Scientists at the University of Newcastle have managed to create human sperm cells using a female embryonic stem cell.

The researchers, led by Prof Karim Nayernia, had previously created primitive sperm cells from male bone marrow. They’re currently working on making the cells from female bone marrow, which would be much easier and more practical than creating them from embryos.
Give it a few years and they'll have any issues worked out.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2009-08-14 13:12:27)

2009-08-14 13:43:08
Lai
Member
+186|6144

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Lai wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

If men could get pregnant abortion rights wouldn't even be in question.
That doesn't mean it is a good thing.

Also, men might not be able to get pregnant but they still can and are still needed to make babies and that countes too.
Uhhhh, men aren't really going to be needed for reproduction any more.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sc … uction/750

Scientists at the University of Newcastle have managed to create human sperm cells using a female embryonic stem cell.

The researchers, led by Prof Karim Nayernia, had previously created primitive sperm cells from male bone marrow. They’re currently working on making the cells from female bone marrow, which would be much easier and more practical than creating them from embryos.
Give it a few years and they'll have any issues worked out.
If we get to the point that men become obsolete, who'll need abortion?
2009-08-14 14:15:08
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6729|Salt Lake City

Lai wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Lai wrote:

That doesn't mean it is a good thing.

Also, men might not be able to get pregnant but they still can and are still needed to make babies and that countes too.
Uhhhh, men aren't really going to be needed for reproduction any more.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sc … uction/750

Scientists at the University of Newcastle have managed to create human sperm cells using a female embryonic stem cell.

The researchers, led by Prof Karim Nayernia, had previously created primitive sperm cells from male bone marrow. They’re currently working on making the cells from female bone marrow, which would be much easier and more practical than creating them from embryos.
Give it a few years and they'll have any issues worked out.
If we get to the point that men become obsolete, who'll need abortion?
While I'm sure a few hard line feminists would like to see all men gone, I don't see women giving up sex.  I was just merely pointing out that reproduction without men can happen.

I'm not advocating that abortion be used as a standard form of birth control, only that the women is the one that should decide on the matter.  Men are all too often willing to put in their opinion on the matter, never having to deal with the issue.  If they could get pregnant, it wouldn't be up for discussion on whether it was a choice or not.

Just look at our current insurance industry.  Erectile dysfunction drugs are covered by medical plans for men, yet some still don't cover birth control for women.  Why is that?

In fact, I'm going to do a quick edit, since I found some statistics regarding contraceptive coverage by health insurers.

* 49% of large group health plans do not routinely cover birth control

* 97% of large group plans cover prescription drugs, but only 33% of those plans cover oral contraceptives, which are the most popular method of reversible female birth control in the country

* A paltry 15% of large group plans cover the five most common forms of birth control: oral contraceptives, diaphragms, IUDs, Depo Provera, and Norplant

* Women age 15-44 pay 68% more for out-of-pocket healthcare costs than their male counterparts, largely due to the cost of reproductive healthcare

By contrast, only about 30% of insurers deny erectile dysfunction drug coverage; so they get 70% coverage for such drugs.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2009-08-14 14:23:30)

2009-08-14 14:32:10
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6535|Texas - Bigger than France

Lai wrote:

If we get to the point that men become obsolete, who'll need abortion?
If that happens, I'm buying stock in flannel
2009-08-14 15:47:25
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6446|The Twilight Zone
She should at least have right to an abortion if she didn't had the right to say NO to non consequential sex
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2009-08-14 16:39:10
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6619|Canada

Lai wrote:

Shahter wrote:

what if the woman doesn't want to take that risk?
She could have thought of that before concieving the child, unless she was raped in which case abortion should always be an option.

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Abortion is a womans right to her own body, you believe that you have the right to decide what she should do?
No, it is not. It is what the women screamed in the 1970's to spearhead their movement when they had relatively few rights at all. In the 21st century I think we can apply a little nuances. Abortion can not be a woman's right alone, it is also a childs bane and a father's blood.

Nobody here that is against regular abortion denies female equality or her rights as an individual. We are just saying that when a certain decision affects multiple individuals, the rights of all of those affected individuals should be taken into consideration.
Im sorry, a fetus has not rights in my eyes. Most people who think a 3 week old fetus has rights, think that it already has a "soul"

I am not religious, so I do not buy that BS.

But w/e, to each his own.
2009-08-15 06:01:38
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6768|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

yeah, but you are forgetting the following little things:
pregnancy practically disables women - for several months at least. each has to postpone her career development and other stuff to bear and give birth to that bloody child. what if she doesn't want to disrupt her life?
also, pregnancy always changes her body - some of those changes may be permanent and outright ugly, some cannot even be fixed with plastic surgery - not to mention the cost of that stuff. what if the woman doesn't want to take that risk?
Then she shouldn't have chosen to engage in unprotected sex (assuming she wasn't raped).
That's honestly one of the weakest and most superficial arguments for abortion I've ever seen...something a 14-year-old girl would argue, tbh.

"Ewww...it'll make me ugly! Kill it!"
oh, crap. i purposefully left the the part about how any contraception could fail out of my post to see which dumbass would give me "she shouldn't have had unprotected sex" bullshit, but, honestly, i didn't think it would be you.
anyway, any women obviously wants to be in control of her life, and yes, that includes control over her body, which could be seriously, sometimes permanently, changed in the process of pregnancy and childbirth. and as i already said - in this same bloody thread btw - that no matter how carefull humans are, unless they start to only have sex for the purposes of reproduction there will always be unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. that is why abortion should be freely available to any women, regardless of circomstances.

Last edited by Shahter (2009-08-15 06:58:46)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-08-15 10:06:49
Zefar
Member
+116|6642|Sweden

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Uhhhh, men aren't really going to be needed for reproduction any more.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sc … uction/750

Scientists at the University of Newcastle have managed to create human sperm cells using a female embryonic stem cell.

The researchers, led by Prof Karim Nayernia, had previously created primitive sperm cells from male bone marrow. They’re currently working on making the cells from female bone marrow, which would be much easier and more practical than creating them from embryos.
Give it a few years and they'll have any issues worked out.
Sweet :3 Humans have OFFICIALLY become Gods. Now that we are able to make LIFE. TAKE THAT Religious people who claim we couldn't do it.


Anyway, women have the right over their own bodies. If they don't have the will or power to carry the child for 9 months they shouldn't.

Btw what do you tell a child who's been adopted and his father was a rapist and that his mother doesn't want him but only gave birth to him so that he could have a go at life?
Sounds like, hey kid, welcome to your new hell.

I don't really care how they got pregnant or how long she has been pregnant. Well ok if she reach like 8-9 month she should give birth to it. Maybe if she reach the 7:nth one too. But before that I really don't care.

Well if one does at 7-9 month for a reason I'm fine with it. It's hers life and not mine.
2009-08-15 13:11:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6398|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Who said anything about banning abortion? There should be alternatives to it (such as better adoption programs).
I would agree, but that would still require more taxes to fund such adoption programs.  Plus, the interim between birth and adoption for each child would require more funding for orphanages.
2009-08-15 13:58:47
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6404|'Murka

DrunkFace wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Then she shouldn't have chosen to engage in unprotected sex (assuming she wasn't raped).
I disagree with this statement in its entirety, but I will say, people can and do still get pregnant while engaged in correctly administered protected sex, but from my standpoint that is entirely irrelevant.
True...but I was referring to Shahter's argument specifically.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-15 13:59:50
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6404|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Who said anything about banning abortion? There should be alternatives to it (such as better adoption programs).
I would agree, but that would still require more taxes to fund such adoption programs.  Plus, the interim between birth and adoption for each child would require more funding for orphanages.
That assumes there couldn't be a system where there is little/no interim. It happens all the time with private adoptions.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-15 16:56:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6398|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Who said anything about banning abortion? There should be alternatives to it (such as better adoption programs).
I would agree, but that would still require more taxes to fund such adoption programs.  Plus, the interim between birth and adoption for each child would require more funding for orphanages.
That assumes there couldn't be a system where there is little/no interim. It happens all the time with private adoptions.
Are you sure that applies to black kids?  Most statistics show that white kids get adopted fast, but it's black kids that few foster parents seem to want (other than certain celebrities who frequent Namibia).

I mean, I would love to set up a system where there is very little of an interim, but so far, the interim still seems like it would figure in big for most kids.
2009-08-17 03:03:16
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6404|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I would agree, but that would still require more taxes to fund such adoption programs.  Plus, the interim between birth and adoption for each child would require more funding for orphanages.
That assumes there couldn't be a system where there is little/no interim. It happens all the time with private adoptions.
Are you sure that applies to black kids?  Most statistics show that white kids get adopted fast, but it's black kids that few foster parents seem to want (other than certain celebrities who frequent Namibia).

I mean, I would love to set up a system where there is very little of an interim, but so far, the interim still seems like it would figure in big for most kids.
If the black kid is involved in a private adoption, then yes, it does. The problem is that in the US, adoption laws make it very difficult on the adoptive families. Hence why many US couples go international to adopt.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard