It's a good thing that Roe v Wade occurred so that women dont have to go to this sort of back alley

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Blade_125:

lowhat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Interesting how America was sold on rhetoric that claimed that only making abortion legal and easily available would get rid of the supposedly widespread risk represented by women going to back alley abortion clinics(loaded misnomer if there ever was one), yet here we are in 2013 and only when the adult woman dies does this sort on Mengele-esque doctor have to face the music.

Hell, we have a president who sees nothing wrong with allowing quacks like Gosnell to continue their butchery even after the "clump of cells" has left the womb and is no longer oppressing the poor, victimized mother with its presence inside her. After all, it's much better that society turns a blind eye to what people like Gosnell do than to force women to be "punished with a baby".

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent, the sort of sick society that views licensing people like Gosnell as "progress" has sown the seeds of its own destruction.

I'm sorry, but until you personally are willing to start campaigning to take care of these babies AFTER they are born your argument has no place here.

There are waiting lists full of countless names of couples wanting to adopt unwanted babies in adoption agencies from one end of this country to another. Those are people who are ready willing and capable of raising those children on their own. Those children, if given to one of the countless waiting families would represent as close to no financial burden to society as to make no difference. So until adoption agencies no longer require couples to wait in line for newborn babies to become available the argument you are trying to make is the one that actually has no place here.

lowhat:
-snip-

I don't quite understand why you're upholding one bad facility and using it as a sign that the very concept of legalized abortion is flawed. That would be like if I bought an apple at the supermarket that turned out to be rotton, and then from that day forward believed that the fundamental concept of buying apples is terribly wrong and flawed.

It's obnoxious when animal right's groups highlight abusive owners and use them as arguments against pet ownership. It's obnoxious when extreme anti-drug groups bring meth and bath salts into the debate about legalizing marijuana. It's obnoxious when anti-gay groups hold up people who have affairs with others of the same-sex in order to proclaim the debauchery of homosexuality. It's obnoxious when anti-theists hold up the Westboro Baptist Church as the biggest reason they think religion is bad. It's obnoxious when creationists and young-earthers try to keep prehistory from being taught in schools because science isn't always absolute. It's obnoxious when people argue against seatbelt and helmet laws because of the fraction of a percent of people who were more harmed by these things than helped. It's obnoxious when anti-immigration people hold up drug cartels as examples of the kinds of people who are coming over from Mexico.

So why on earth would it not be obnoxious of you to say "Hey, look, some people are doing bad things involving abortion. Abortion as a whole must be bad!"

Super Not Cosmo:

Blade_125:

lowhat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Interesting how America was sold on rhetoric that claimed that only making abortion legal and easily available would get rid of the supposedly widespread risk represented by women going to back alley abortion clinics(loaded misnomer if there ever was one), yet here we are in 2013 and only when the adult woman dies does this sort on Mengele-esque doctor have to face the music.

Hell, we have a president who sees nothing wrong with allowing quacks like Gosnell to continue their butchery even after the "clump of cells" has left the womb and is no longer oppressing the poor, victimized mother with its presence inside her. After all, it's much better that society turns a blind eye to what people like Gosnell do than to force women to be "punished with a baby".

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent, the sort of sick society that views licensing people like Gosnell as "progress" has sown the seeds of its own destruction.

I'm sorry, but until you personally are willing to start campaigning to take care of these babies AFTER they are born your argument has no place here.

There are waiting lists full of countless names of couples wanting to adopt unwanted babies in adoption agencies from one end of this country to another. Those are people who are ready willing and capable of raising those children on their own. Those children, if given to one of the countless waiting families would represent as close to no financial burden to society as to make no difference. So until adoption agencies no longer require couples to wait in line for newborn babies to become available the argument you are trying to make is the one that actually has no place here.

Here is where you have no idea what you are talking about. My wife and I have looked into adoption, and do you know why there are so many people on a waiting list? Because they want a newborn, with no possibility of physical issues. Do you know how many children who are not newborns are waiting for adoption? Enough to make anyone with the slightest bit of empathy cry. So many children spend their whole lives in the foster care system and then when they are 18 they are kicked out and told to fend for themselves. Can you guess where most of these children end up after they are kicked out? Usually on the street or in prison.

So do not speak to me on this when you have no idea what you are talking about. I will thank you to do your research before you start speaking on a subject as if you are some sort of authority. When you start campaigning for more funding to foster care services and advertising to adopt an older child then maybe we can discuss this further.

Blade_125:
Here is where you have no idea what you are talking about. My wife and I have looked into adoption, and do you know why there are so many people on a waiting list? Because they want a newborn, with no possibility of physical issues. Do you know how many children who are not newborns are waiting for adoption? Enough to make anyone with the slightest bit of empathy cry. So many children spend their whole lives in the foster care system and then when they are 18 they are kicked out and told to fend for themselves. Can you guess where most of these children end up after they are kicked out? Usually on the street or in prison.

So do not speak to me on this when you have no idea what you are talking about. I will thank you to do your research before you start speaking on a subject as if you are some sort of authority. When you start campaigning for more funding to foster care services and advertising to adopt an older child then maybe we can discuss this further.

Now I could be wrong about this admittedly but the last time I checked, and again I don't have any first hand knowledge, but logic would dictate to me that the majority of the children being killed in abortion clinics would fall into the "newborn" category. No? I guess there could be women out there having abortions in their eighteenth or thirty second trimester that I'm just not seeing or hearing about I'm just going to take a leap and say that there aren't too many.

Now when you combine my crazy assumption that we are aborting primarily newborns and combine that with the lists upon lists of people wanting to adopt . . . wait for it . . . newborns it would seem that my original statement that these aborted babies pose damn near no burden to society what-so-ever if they were to be carried to term and given up for adoption because they would be snatched up almost straight away.

Now I'm sure that there are indeed older children stuck in the system with little hope of being adopted but they have nothing to do with the countless babies that are being killed who have lists upon lists of people that would be more than happy to adopt them. It's an apples and oranges comparison. These people are unlikely to adopt an older kid just because there is a wait on newborns. No, they are going to put their name on the list and wait their turn all while babies they would be happy to raise as their own are killed.

Super Not Cosmo:

Now I could be wrong about this admittedly but the last time I checked, and again I don't have any first hand knowledge, but logic would dictate to me that the majority of the children being killed in abortion clinics would fall into the "newborn" category. No? I guess there could be women out there having abortions in their eighteenth or thirty second trimester that I'm just not seeing or hearing about I'm just going to take a leap and say that there aren't too many.

Now when you combine my crazy assumption that we are aborting primarily newborns and combine that with the lists upon lists of people wanting to adopt . . . wait for it . . . newborns it would seem that my original statement that these aborted babies pose damn near no burden to society what-so-ever if they were to be carried to term and given up for adoption because they would be snatched up almost straight away.

Now I'm sure that there are indeed older children stuck in the system with little hope of being adopted but they have nothing to do with the countless babies that are being killed who have lists upon lists of people that would be more than happy to adopt them. It's an apples and oranges comparison. These people are unlikely to adopt an older kid just because there is a wait on newborns. No, they are going to put their name on the list and wait their turn all while babies they would be happy to raise as their own are killed.

What a brilliant post, but you have defeated your own argument. How can you argue that we should not have abortions because people are waiting for children to adopt when there are already children to adopt.

I'm sorry but you are simply arguing from an idiological point of view, and impartial people who view human rights as paramount do not agree with your view.

I honestly don't care what your views are, I was only pointing out hypocracy to you and the OP, since your view is care about the unborn, but then your concern is gone. Regarding the larger debate the supreme courts in most (all?) major western countries believe that it is a womans right to choose. You can argue till your are blue in the face, but that does not change things. An embrio is not a person, no more than a sperm or an egg are, and I always find these arguments so hypocritical when they don't include contraception. You are preventing a potential life in both cases. So if you are anti contraception then I guess I will withdraw that particular hypocracy accusation.

And I am not going to get into the finer points of morality on this, as that was not the original point. You pointed out people waiting for adoption, I pointed out why your point is not valid... twice. Whether you choose to accept truth when it is presented is your choice. If you feel the sacrifice of some children are worth it so uninformed couples can have a newborn, well that is your view but one Idon't share.

Super Not Cosmo:

Blade_125:
Here is where you have no idea what you are talking about. My wife and I have looked into adoption, and do you know why there are so many people on a waiting list? Because they want a newborn, with no possibility of physical issues. Do you know how many children who are not newborns are waiting for adoption? Enough to make anyone with the slightest bit of empathy cry. So many children spend their whole lives in the foster care system and then when they are 18 they are kicked out and told to fend for themselves. Can you guess where most of these children end up after they are kicked out? Usually on the street or in prison.

So do not speak to me on this when you have no idea what you are talking about. I will thank you to do your research before you start speaking on a subject as if you are some sort of authority. When you start campaigning for more funding to foster care services and advertising to adopt an older child then maybe we can discuss this further.

Now I could be wrong about this admittedly but the last time I checked, and again I don't have any first hand knowledge, but logic would dictate to me that the majority of the children being killed in abortion clinics would fall into the "newborn" category. No? I guess there could be women out there having abortions in their eighteenth or thirty second trimester that I'm just not seeing or hearing about I'm just going to take a leap and say that there aren't too many.

Now when you combine my crazy assumption that we are aborting primarily newborns and combine that with the lists upon lists of people wanting to adopt . . . wait for it . . . newborns it would seem that my original statement that these aborted babies pose damn near no burden to society what-so-ever if they were to be carried to term and given up for adoption because they would be snatched up almost straight away.

Now I'm sure that there are indeed older children stuck in the system with little hope of being adopted but they have nothing to do with the countless babies that are being killed who have lists upon lists of people that would be more than happy to adopt them. It's an apples and oranges comparison. These people are unlikely to adopt an older kid just because there is a wait on newborns. No, they are going to put their name on the list and wait their turn all while babies they would be happy to raise as their own are killed.

"Now I could be wrong about this admittedly but the last time I checked, and again I don't have any first hand knowledge,..." You said all we need to know right there, brother. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. Neither children nor newborns are being killed in abortion clinics. Most abortions occur before 8 weeks gestation. Your language in this post is so sloppy and biased, you can't even begin to discuss this issue.

Super Not Cosmo:

Blade_125:
Here is where you have no idea what you are talking about. My wife and I have looked into adoption, and do you know why there are so many people on a waiting list? Because they want a newborn, with no possibility of physical issues. Do you know how many children who are not newborns are waiting for adoption? Enough to make anyone with the slightest bit of empathy cry. So many children spend their whole lives in the foster care system and then when they are 18 they are kicked out and told to fend for themselves. Can you guess where most of these children end up after they are kicked out? Usually on the street or in prison.

So do not speak to me on this when you have no idea what you are talking about. I will thank you to do your research before you start speaking on a subject as if you are some sort of authority. When you start campaigning for more funding to foster care services and advertising to adopt an older child then maybe we can discuss this further.

Now I could be wrong about this admittedly but the last time I checked, and again I don't have any first hand knowledge, but logic would dictate to me that the majority of the children being killed in abortion clinics would fall into the "newborn" category. No? I guess there could be women out there having abortions in their eighteenth or thirty second trimester that I'm just not seeing or hearing about I'm just going to take a leap and say that there aren't too many.

Now when you combine my crazy assumption that we are aborting primarily newborns and combine that with the lists upon lists of people wanting to adopt . . . wait for it . . . newborns it would seem that my original statement that these aborted babies pose damn near no burden to society what-so-ever if they were to be carried to term and given up for adoption because they would be snatched up almost straight away.

Now I'm sure that there are indeed older children stuck in the system with little hope of being adopted but they have nothing to do with the countless babies that are being killed who have lists upon lists of people that would be more than happy to adopt them. It's an apples and oranges comparison. These people are unlikely to adopt an older kid just because there is a wait on newborns. No, they are going to put their name on the list and wait their turn all while babies they would be happy to raise as their own are killed.

Do you even know what abortion is?

More importantly, you do know in order to make a new born a woman has to endure a pregnancy? Which is no cake walk. Just because a woman has the capability to be pregnant, doesn't mean WE want to be.

It's as if some of you men think it's something so simple and easy. God if I had one wish it would be for the male race to endure menstrual cycles for a year. Pregnancy for nine months (whether you consented or not). Child birth afterwards and all the lovely things that come after that like lactating. I believe it would be an awfully humbling experience.

/rage off.

ShiningAmber:

Do you even know what abortion is?

More importantly, you do know in order to make a new born a woman has to endure a pregnancy? Which is no cake walk. Just because a woman has the capability to be pregnant, doesn't mean WE want to be.

It's as if some of you men think it's something so simple and easy. God if I had one wish it would be for the male race to endure menstrual cycles for a year. Pregnancy for nine months (whether you consented or not). Child birth afterwards and all the lovely things that come after that like lactating. I believe it would be an awfully humbling experience.

/rage off.

Thank you. This is why I feel that I and any other idiot man who wants to sound off on this have no business dictating to women. We don't deal with it so we have no business in it.

Lilani:

lowhat:
-snip-

I don't quite understand why you're upholding one bad facility and using it as a sign that the very concept of legalized abortion is flawed. That would be like if I bought an apple at the supermarket that turned out to be rotton, and then from that day forward believed that the fundamental concept of buying apples is terribly wrong and flawed.

It's obnoxious when animal right's groups highlight abusive owners and use them as arguments against pet ownership. It's obnoxious when extreme anti-drug groups bring meth and bath salts into the debate about legalizing marijuana. It's obnoxious when anti-gay groups hold up people who have affairs with others of the same-sex in order to proclaim the debauchery of homosexuality. It's obnoxious when anti-theists hold up the Westboro Baptist Church as the biggest reason they think religion is bad. It's obnoxious when creationists and young-earthers try to keep prehistory from being taught in schools because science isn't always absolute. It's obnoxious when people argue against seatbelt and helmet laws because of the fraction of a percent of people who were more harmed by these things than helped. It's obnoxious when anti-immigration people hold up drug cartels as examples of the kinds of people who are coming over from Mexico.

So why on earth would it not be obnoxious of you to say "Hey, look, some people are doing bad things involving abortion. Abortion as a whole must be bad!"

I'm not really concerned with whether or not someone else thinks that I'm doing something obnoxious. Pretty much anything a person can do will be labeled as obnoxious by at least one other person, it would be pointless to worry about it.

I bring the subject up more to bring the illogical pro-abortion nuts out of the woodwork, and occasionally to get a conversation with one of the very rare abortion supporters who use the only logical argument in favor of it, which is that "society should have the right to empower some individuals within it to end another human life under some circumstances". Instead, the most common response to anyone being critical of abortion on demand is nutty attempts to dehumanize human beings with the most tortured logic imaginable.

I happen to like talking to people who favor abortion even though they recognize that it is the deliberate ending of a human life. Much in the same way I like talking to people who favor the death penalty. I don't agree with them, but it's good to talk to people you don't agree with to step into another person's mind.

lowhat:

I bring the subject up more to bring the illogical pro-abortion nuts out of the woodwork, and occasionally to get a conversation with one of the very rare abortion supporters who use the only logical argument in favor of it, which is that "society should have the right to empower some individuals within it to end another human life under some circumstances".

The "logical argument" you supply is virtually useless. In historical terms, it is mere truism to say society can determine the rights of some individuals to end other human lives under some circumstance - an uncontroversial constant since the dawn of our species.

The issues are now and have ever been who is allowed to end life and under what circumstances. There are quite obviously a lot of logical arguments for many different forms of legal killing that have existed over the years (e.g. warfare, execution of lawbreakers, euthanasia, population control, abortion, etc.). Patently there are (or have been by the standards of the time) adequate logical arguments for nearly all of them.

What you mean to say is that you do not agree with various moral premises and/or facts that other people use to logically develop an argument about abortion contrary to your own. But I do understand it's easier to smear ones opponents rather than risk the discomfort of really thinking about what they're saying.

Agema:

The issues are now and have ever been who is allowed to end life and under what circumstances. There are quite obviously a lot of logical arguments for many different forms of legal killing that have existed over the years (e.g. warfare, execution of lawbreakers, euthanasia, population control, abortion, etc.). Patently there are (or have been by the standards of the time) adequate logical arguments for nearly all of them.

Generally we kill people who've irreparably damaged society (people who commit capital murder, traitors, etc) or for those that their quality of life is so low that living is considered worse than death (Terminally ill, quadriplegics in the case that they have a living will, etc); and not because they've grown inconvenient.

So here's a question for the people that're 'pro-choice'. In the case of abortion being used as birth control, why was having sex not considered to be the vital choice? The biological function of sex is reproduction. If you have sex, even if you use a contraceptive (of which none are 100% effective), how can you be surprised that a pregnancy results from it? Would the logical thing be to not have sex if you don't want a child? (That goes for both genders).

An abortion is a way to relieve one's responsibility for their own actions, which is a worrying trend that shows up in many fields. It's essentially butchering a child because the parent(s) don't feel like living up to what they've done.

Funfact: There are 1.3 million abortions a year in the US. 13,000 of them are because of rape or incest. That's 1%. 2% are late term, which is what Gosnell has been preforming (Which amounts to 26,000)

ShiningAmber:
Do you even know what abortion is?

More importantly, you do know in order to make a new born a woman has to endure a pregnancy? Which is no cake walk. Just because a woman has the capability to be pregnant, doesn't mean WE want to be.

It's as if some of you men think it's something so simple and easy. God if I had one wish it would be for the male race to endure menstrual cycles for a year. Pregnancy for nine months (whether you consented or not). Child birth afterwards and all the lovely things that come after that like lactating. I believe it would be an awfully humbling experience.

/rage off.

Now again I have to say that this isn't something I'm 100% on but, the last time I checked which admittedly has been a while, women didn't just up and become pregnant like they catch the flu. You don't work a shitty 80 hour week at work then come down with a bad case of pregnancy out of thin air. I suppose there are those rare cases of miraculous conception ever few thousand years or so when some unlucky lady gets knocked up with the son of God and all but that's just splitting hairs.

There are very specific ways women can live with the peace of mind of not having to fear becoming pregnant. The most guaranteed way is to not have sex. I know that's a crazy notion. I know that 11 Commandment carried down from on high on a separate, lesser known, stone tablet gave women the right to have sex free of any consequences what-so-ever. However, if you are that opposed to becoming pregnant not having sex is a sure fire way to keep it from happening.

The thing is if you are having sex you face becoming pregnant. I'm pretty sure they ended the government conspiracy to keep this knowledge from the masses. I suppose there might be a certain subset of women that are out there having sex who are still of the belief that babies are delivered via stork or cabbage patch or something but I'd estimate they are in the minority by now.

So seeing most women have discovered the once tightly guarded secret of how babies are made it always amazes me when this attitude of "Poor me. I got pregnant through no fault of my own and there was no way at all I could have avoided this and it's just soooo unfair that there are people out there that expect me to live with the consequences of my actions" pops up. And that's the thing actions have consequences. If a woman is so opposed to becoming pregnant then maybe she shouldn't be having sex. I know, I know me and my radical ideas.

Super Not Cosmo:

ShiningAmber:
Do you even know what abortion is?

More importantly, you do know in order to make a new born a woman has to endure a pregnancy? Which is no cake walk. Just because a woman has the capability to be pregnant, doesn't mean WE want to be.

It's as if some of you men think it's something so simple and easy. God if I had one wish it would be for the male race to endure menstrual cycles for a year. Pregnancy for nine months (whether you consented or not). Child birth afterwards and all the lovely things that come after that like lactating. I believe it would be an awfully humbling experience.

/rage off.

Now again I have to say that this isn't something I'm 100% on but, the last time I checked which admittedly has been a while, women didn't just up and become pregnant like they catch the flu. You don't work a shitty 80 hour week at work then come down with a bad case of pregnancy out of thin air. I suppose there are those rare cases of miraculous conception ever few thousand years or so when some unlucky lady gets knocked up with the son of God and all but that's just splitting hairs.

There are very specific ways women can live with the peace of mind of not having to fear becoming pregnant the most guaranteed way is to not have sex. I know that's a crazy notion. I know that 11 Commandment carried down from on high on a separate, lesser known, stone tablet gave women the right to have sex free of any consequences what-so-ever. However, if you are that opposed to becoming pregnant not having sex is a sure fire way to keep it from happening.

The thing is if you are having sex you face becoming pregnant. I'm pretty sure they ended the government conspiracy to keep this knowledge from the masses. I suppose there might be a certain subset of women that are out there having sex who are still of the belief that babies are delivered via stork or cabbage patch or something but I'd estimate they are in the minority by now.

So seeing most women have discovered the once tightly guarded secret of how babies are made it always amazes me when this attitude of "Poor me. I got pregnant through no fault of my own and there was no way at all I could have avoided this and it's just soooo unfair that there are people out there that expect me to live with the consequences of my actions" pops up. And that's the thing actions have consequences. If a woman is so opposed to becoming pregnant then maybe she shouldn't be having sex. I know, I know me and my radical ideas.

How sarcastic you are is appalling. As if I'm unaware of how a pregnancy happens. As a woman, I'm disgusted by this post.

Thank you, MAN, for telling me how my body functions. I was unaware.

Are you aware rapes happen? Women get pregnant from that. Abused women and their abusive husbands too. Regardless of the means of conception, whether she consented or not, YOUR OPINION DOES NOT OVERRIDE HER RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY.

Take your disgusting sarcastic remarks elsewhere. As a victim of sexual assault who had to face an ordeal similar to this, you disgust me. As a person who will NEVER have to make a decision like this, but wills to take it away from people that may have to, you disgust me.

If man could get pregnant, this procedure would be sacrosanct.

Kopikatsu:

So here's a question for the people that're 'pro-choice'. In the case of abortion being used as birth control, why was having sex not considered to be the vital choice? The biological function of sex is reproduction. If you have sex, even if you use a contraceptive (of which none are 100% effective), how can you be surprised that a pregnancy results from it? Would the logical thing be to not have sex if you don't want a child? (That goes for both genders).

An abortion is a way to relieve one's responsibility for their own actions, which is a worrying trend that shows up in many fields. It's essentially butchering a child because the parent(s) don't feel like living up to what they've done.

Well, you've run into the problem of technicality vs practicality. Sex is suppose to be for reproduction. But in this day and age, its more of a recreational thing between couples.

I'm opposed to using abortion as birth control, but, if you've taken steps to prevent a pregnancy and it still happens, I'm not against correcting the mistake.

ShiningAmber:

It's as if some of you men think it's something so simple and easy. God if I had one wish it would be for the male race to endure menstrual cycles for a year. Pregnancy for nine months (whether you consented or not). Child birth afterwards and all the lovely things that come after that like lactating. I believe it would be an awfully humbling experience.

/rage off.

Disclaimer: Imagine the following is said by whoever your favorite stand-up comedian is.

But some of us do have experience with menstrual cycles, for longer than a year, those things don't exist in a vacuum. Not our own cycles, of course, but ye gods, it must be terrible for the ladies, considering we're likely only taking some partial force of the hit.

But hey, let's swap genders for a year! Guys have to deal with being called a slut the moment they're not dressed like an Eskimo, with the cramps, and with being lied to by car mechanics; and ladies have to deal with the "...or else I'll cry and scream in public", groin attacks, and sleeping on the couch for something they don't even know they did.

Whoever wants to swap to their original gender after a year goes back, whoever doesn't, doesn't. Then we just count the people in both groups to make up some statistics.

Right, that was it for the stand-up.

Bottom line is, I get you're upset (and that's an understatement) at some comments here, hell, I am upset at those comments and they're not nearly as "intimately" connected to my existance. But "the male life" isn't all flowers and sunshine, and at least I don't need first-hand experience for a little empathy towards people.

ShiningAmber:
How sarcastic you are is appalling. As if I'm unaware of how a pregnancy happens. As a woman, I'm disgusted by this post.

Thank you, MAN, for telling me how my body functions. I was unaware.

Are you aware rapes happen? Women get pregnant from that. Abused women and their abusive husbands too. Regardless of the means of conception, whether she consented or not, YOUR OPINION DOES NOT OVERRIDE HER RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY.

Take your disgusting sarcastic remarks elsewhere. As a victim of sexual assault who had to face an ordeal similar to this, you disgust me. As a person who will NEVER have to make a decision like this, but wills to take it away from people that may have to, you disgust me.

If man could get pregnant, this procedure would be sacrosanct.

Yes yes I'm well aware rapes, and incest, and medical complications happen. And I have no problem, in those extreme and unfortunate instances, with abortion being offered up. However, those are a relatively small number when compared to all the abortions that happen as a means of shirking consequences of actions made by women of their own free will. In those cases not involving rape or incest or life/health of the mother it is simply killing another person for the sake of convenience. They have a fancy word for just that sort of thing that lawyers and other smart law folk use but I can't place it off the top of my head.

Super Not Cosmo:
Yes yes I'm well aware rapes, and incest, and medical complications happen. And I have no problem, in those extreme and unfortunate instances, with abortion being offered up. However, those are a relatively small number when compared to all the abortions that happen as a means of shirking consequences of actions made by women of their own free will.

Pretending for the time being that robbing women of their rights except in cases of rape is a good idea:

How many? Do you need a conviction of rape for it to count? The conviction rate of rape is tiny.

For that matter, if you get a conviction, is it going to be in time? How long does the court case take?

Super Not Cosmo:

ShiningAmber:
How sarcastic you are is appalling. As if I'm unaware of how a pregnancy happens. As a woman, I'm disgusted by this post.

Thank you, MAN, for telling me how my body functions. I was unaware.

Are you aware rapes happen? Women get pregnant from that. Abused women and their abusive husbands too. Regardless of the means of conception, whether she consented or not, YOUR OPINION DOES NOT OVERRIDE HER RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY.

Take your disgusting sarcastic remarks elsewhere. As a victim of sexual assault who had to face an ordeal similar to this, you disgust me. As a person who will NEVER have to make a decision like this, but wills to take it away from people that may have to, you disgust me.

If man could get pregnant, this procedure would be sacrosanct.

Yes yes I'm well aware rapes, and incest, and medical complications happen. And I have no problem, in those extreme and unfortunate instances, with abortion being offered up. However, those are a relatively small number when compared to all the abortions that happen as a means of shirking consequences of actions made by women of their own free will. In those cases not involving rape or incest or life/health of the mother it is simply killing another person for the sake of convenience. They have a fancy word for just that sort of thing that lawyers and other smart law folk use but I can't place it off the top of my head.

Should a baby two months old be subject to death if it is the product of rape (and the mother wants to kill it)? Or are you, just like the pro-choice, making a clear distinction between abortion and real murder? An unborn child conceived in rape is just as innocent a being as any other, is it not? And yet you seem to make a distinction.

Super Not Cosmo:

ShiningAmber:
How sarcastic you are is appalling. As if I'm unaware of how a pregnancy happens. As a woman, I'm disgusted by this post.

Thank you, MAN, for telling me how my body functions. I was unaware.

Are you aware rapes happen? Women get pregnant from that. Abused women and their abusive husbands too. Regardless of the means of conception, whether she consented or not, YOUR OPINION DOES NOT OVERRIDE HER RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY.

Take your disgusting sarcastic remarks elsewhere. As a victim of sexual assault who had to face an ordeal similar to this, you disgust me. As a person who will NEVER have to make a decision like this, but wills to take it away from people that may have to, you disgust me.

If man could get pregnant, this procedure would be sacrosanct.

Yes yes I'm well aware rapes, and incest, and medical complications happen. And I have no problem, in those extreme and unfortunate instances, with abortion being offered up. However, those are a relatively small number when compared to all the abortions that happen as a means of shirking consequences of actions made by women of their own free will. In those cases not involving rape or incest or life/health of the mother it is simply killing another person for the sake of convenience. They have a fancy word for just that sort of thing that lawyers and other smart law folk use but I can't place it off the top of my head.

The majority of rapes go unreported. Even then, those that do go to court don't fare very well.

In the case of convenience, I'm going to argue that you do not know every woman. You do NOT know what every woman is going through or has gone through. You can't argue convenience for every single woman desiring an abortion.

And 'Consequences of actions'? You seek to punish women with pregnancy because of their actions? Accidents happen. Birth control fails. Condoms break all the time. You can't possibly know every single, little (or great) thing that led to a woman seeking an abortion. Punishing a woman with pregnancy and child birth? Who are YOU to judge what a woman has to endure.

My point is to mind your own business. Punishing women with pregnancy is wrong. Not only that, it's disgusting. But, I wouldn't expect someone who will never have to endure something like that to understand. Not that I fault you for that. What I do fault you for is taking a choice away (one that you will NEVER have to make) from those that may need it.

You do not know every woman. Stop thinking it's right to punish them with pregnancy. It's disgusting.

Stop trying to put EVERY woman's circumstances into a box.

Shadowstar38:

And 'Consequences of actions'? You seek to punish women with pregnancy because of their actions? Accidents happen. Birth control fails. Condoms break all the time. You can't possibly know every single, little (or great) thing that led to a woman seeking an abortion. Punishing a woman with pregnancy and child birth? Who are YOU to judge what a woman has to endure

Logical consequences? OH GOD, SOMEONE CALL THE COPS.

Women aren't 'punished' with pregnancy because they had sex. The purpose of sex is reproduction. If you don't want a child, don't have sex. (Also goes for men, since the law considers them to be legally responsible for a resulting child even if they have no rights to it.)

Shadowstar38:

Kopikatsu:

So here's a question for the people that're 'pro-choice'. In the case of abortion being used as birth control, why was having sex not considered to be the vital choice? The biological function of sex is reproduction. If you have sex, even if you use a contraceptive (of which none are 100% effective), how can you be surprised that a pregnancy results from it? Would the logical thing be to not have sex if you don't want a child? (That goes for both genders).

An abortion is a way to relieve one's responsibility for their own actions, which is a worrying trend that shows up in many fields. It's essentially butchering a child because the parent(s) don't feel like living up to what they've done.

Well, you've run into the problem of technicality vs practicality. Sex is suppose to be for reproduction. But in this day and age, its more of a recreational thing between couples.

I'm opposed to using abortion as birth control, but, if you've taken steps to prevent a pregnancy and it still happens, I'm not against correcting the mistake.

If people want to treat sex recreationally, then they should have to deal with the consequences of that. Random tidbit, having sex while knowingly inflicted with a severe STD, such as AIDS, is considered attempted murder in some states.

Kopikatsu:
Logical consequences? OH GOD, SOMEONE CALL THE COPS.

Women aren't 'punished' with pregnancy because they had sex. The purpose of sex is reproduction. If you don't want a child, don't have sex. (Also goes for men, since the law considers them to be legally responsible for a resulting child even if they have no rights to it.)

The "purpose" of sex is whatever the hell we want it to be. And it seems in the majority of cases not to be about producing offspring. People, by and large, have sex for other reasons. Now, we can ignore that reality and seek to punish people who don't adhere to your ideology regarding the "purpose" of sex. Or we can not.

Kopikatsu:

Generally we kill people who've irreparably damaged society (people who commit capital murder, traitors, etc) or for those that their quality of life is so low that living is considered worse than death (Terminally ill, quadriplegics in the case that they have a living will, etc); and not because they've grown inconvenient.

And under what circumstances do we kill things that are not people?

So here's a question for the people that're 'pro-choice'. In the case of abortion being used as birth control, why was having sex not considered to be the vital choice? The biological function of sex is reproduction. If you have sex, even if you use a contraceptive (of which none are 100% effective), how can you be surprised that a pregnancy results from it? Would the logical thing be to not have sex if you don't want a child? (That goes for both genders).

Yes, and the biological function of our brains gives us the ability to think past our immediate biological constraints. You may as well argue that we shouldn't use aeroplanes because if God had wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings. And if the plane crashes, we deserve it for not walking and swimming as biology (/God) intended us to move around.

The next peculiarity is this idea of a "vital choice". I might note that it's dangerously close to also rejecting the rationale for contraception. We can put as many choices as we desire between an act and certain consequences that may come of it. We make a "vital choice" to use nuclear power to generate energy, but there's no particular reason to use that as an argument to not have safety measures in case of an accident.

Finally, I think it very reasonable to be surprised if sex with 99% reliable contraception ends in a pregnancy.

Seanchaidh:

Kopikatsu:
Logical consequences? OH GOD, SOMEONE CALL THE COPS.

Women aren't 'punished' with pregnancy because they had sex. The purpose of sex is reproduction. If you don't want a child, don't have sex. (Also goes for men, since the law considers them to be legally responsible for a resulting child even if they have no rights to it.)

The "purpose" of sex is whatever the hell we want it to be. And it seems in the majority of cases not to be about producing offspring. People, by and large, have sex for other reasons. Now, we can ignore that reality and seek to punish people who don't adhere to our ideology regarding the "purpose" of sex. Or we can not.

It's not an ideology, it's a biological function. It's not a philosophical issue, it's basic biology.

Agema:

Finally, I think it very reasonable to be surprised if sex with 99% reliable contraception ends in a pregnancy.

There are approximately 250,000,000 people above the age of 18 in the US. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that everyone has sex twice a month. That would mean that if all of them were to use contraceptives that were 99% effective, there would be 30 million failures over the course of a single year.

Edit: For the record, I am against contraception. It gives a false sense of safety/security and leads to a very wide host of problems that are then put upon society as a whole.

Kopikatsu:
It's not an ideology, it's a biological function. It's not a philosophical issue, it's basic biology.

Oh, it's a function now? Not a purpose? Not the purpose? That seems to rob your idea of its weight. And yes, your focus is indeed a matter of your ideology. Because sex has many other effects that are not children. More immediate effects, in fact. More probable effects, even! And that's just biology too!

Seanchaidh:

Kopikatsu:
It's not an ideology, it's a biological function. It's not a philosophical issue, it's basic biology.

Oh, it's a function now? Not a purpose? Not the purpose? That seems to rob your idea of its weight. And yes, your focus is indeed a matter of your ideology. Because sex has many other effects that are not children. More immediate effects, in fact. And that's just biology too!

Sex is a biological function, yes. The purpose of that function is reproduction.

Any result of sex (Such as the release of endorphins) are to manipulate the body/mind into desiring more of it, resulting in reproduction at a greater scale, and ensuring the continuation of the species. Pretty much all living creatures are designed with reproduction in mind, even to the point of self-destruction (As with salmon). For example, if a human woman doesn't get enough nutrients while pregnant, the developing fetus will leech the nutrients from her body. This is why some women develop osteoporosis during pregnancy. Because the fetus isn't getting enough calcium, and so it leeches it from the mother's bones directly.

Kopikatsu:

Seanchaidh:

Kopikatsu:
It's not an ideology, it's a biological function. It's not a philosophical issue, it's basic biology.

Oh, it's a function now? Not a purpose? Not the purpose? That seems to rob your idea of its weight. And yes, your focus is indeed a matter of your ideology. Because sex has many other effects that are not children. More immediate effects, in fact. And that's just biology too!

Sex is a biological function, yes. The purpose of that function is reproduction.

Any result of sex (Such as the release of endorphins) are to manipulate the body/mind into desiring more of it, resulting in reproduction at a greater scale, and ensuring the continuation of the species. Pretty much all living creatures are designed with reproduction in mind, even to the point of self-destruction (As with salmon). For example, if a human woman doesn't get enough nutrients while pregnant, the developing fetus will leech the nutrients from her body. This is why some women develop osteoporosis during pregnancy. Because the fetus isn't getting enough calcium, and so it leeches it from the mother's bones directly.

That's just the point. Living creatures aren't designed at all. Well, not the ones we're talking about anyway. There is no greater being that gives purpose to our actions than ourselves, and, once again, our purposes for sex are usually not reproduction.

Seanchaidh:

That's just the point. Living creatures aren't designed at all. Well, not the ones we're talking about anyway. There is no greater being that gives purpose to our actions than ourselves, and, once again, our purposes for sex are usually not reproduction.

Er...yes, they are? Without reproduction, the species would die out in a single generation. It is the single most vital mechanic there is, right behind survival.

You seem to be confusing what I'm saying with religious dogma (specifically intelligent design and the like), but I'm talking about grade school biology. These are all concepts you should have learned already. Natural selection and evolution shape and craft living beings. Those that survive to reproduce are the ones that are most fit for survival. In the Arctic, dogs with thicker and whiter coats tend to outlive the ones that have neither warmth nor camouflage, thus ensuring the continuation of the species. Peacocks with the brightest colors are the ones who have their mating rituals accepted, and so their chicks end up having brighter colors, perpetuating the cycle. And so on.

Kopikatsu:

So here's a question for the people that're 'pro-choice'. In the case of abortion being used as birth control, why was having sex not considered to be the vital choice? The biological function of sex is reproduction. If you have sex, even if you use a contraceptive (of which none are 100% effective), how can you be surprised that a pregnancy results from it? Would the logical thing be to not have sex if you don't want a child? (That goes for both genders).

Super Not Cosmo:
Now again I have to say that this isn't something I'm 100% on but, the last time I checked which admittedly has been a while, women didn't just up and become pregnant like they catch the flu. You don't work a shitty 80 hour week at work then come down with a bad case of pregnancy out of thin air. I suppose there are those rare cases of miraculous conception ever few thousand years or so when some unlucky lady gets knocked up with the son of God and all but that's just splitting hairs.

There are very specific ways women can live with the peace of mind of not having to fear becoming pregnant. The most guaranteed way is to not have sex. I know that's a crazy notion. I know that 11 Commandment carried down from on high on a separate, lesser known, stone tablet gave women the right to have sex free of any consequences what-so-ever. However, if you are that opposed to becoming pregnant not having sex is a sure fire way to keep it from happening.

Looks like you both still need some education (and cosmo your condesending shtick doesn't work when you don't know what you are talking about.

Sexual gratification is not like deciding to go on a trip, or buying a luxery item. It is considered a basic human need. Right at the same level as food, clothing and shelter.

Would you both be willing to do me a favour. Google Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is something taught in post secondary schools, and discusses needs of a human fromt he most basic and up. Sexual release is right at the base. It is something all animals need and is evolutionary in nature (the stronger the desire for sex the more likely a species is to reproduce and survive).

So your argument is ignorant. While it is possible to resist this, it is not easy. Have either of you ever been in a situation where you gave in? If you were able to resist I am sure after you went home you.. relieved your tention.

So until you can come up with some other well documented research that contradicts this you are simply arguing from your own anectodal experience and what you think is logic. Arguing from ignorance is never the answer, adn I do hope you both take the time to read what I have suggested and become a little more educated.

Seanchaidh:

That's just the point. Living creatures aren't designed at all. Well, not the ones we're talking about anyway. There is no greater being that gives purpose to our actions than ourselves, and, once again, our purposes for sex are usually not reproduction.

Yes and no.

This is a result of evolution. The desire for sex isn't itself a conscious decision to reproduce. Instead a species that was more likely to have sex is more likely to reproduce and pass on that genetic trait.

So the reason most animals have a high sex drive is because that allowed them to reproduce. That is why humans are going to have sex no matter what you tell them, which is why contraceptive education is so important.

But you are also correct in that your purpose for sex is not reproduction. It obviously can be if a couple wants to have a baby, but from the time puberty hits we are all looking for sex whenever we can get it. That is just an evolutionary biproduct.

Blade_125:

Would you both be willing to do me a favour. Google Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is something taught in post secondary schools, and discusses needs of a human fromt he most basic and up. Sexual release is right at the base. It is something all animals need and is evolutionary in nature (the stronger the desire for sex the more likely a species is to reproduce and survive).

So your argument is ignorant. While it is possible to resist this, it is not easy. Have either of you ever been in a situation where you gave in? If you were able to resist I am sure after you went home you.. relieved your tention.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory (an actual theory, not a scientific theory) based on his educated opinion. But it's not more right than any of Freud's theories (By the way, pretty much everything Freud ever said was a load of bull. The only decent thing he contributed to psychology was a method of therapy.)

The hierarchy of needs is a philosophical view. It is not an objective truth, as there is nothing objective about it.

And no, I've never actually 'given in'. I've been offered, but I've never accepted because it would be exceedingly foolish to do so. There is one short term benefit and many, many potential long term consequences. It's interesting that the other guy was arguing that humans can rise above their base desires, which is why recreational sex is a thing, but you're arguing that humans can't rise above their base desires, which is why recreational sex is a thing.

The actual reason that recreational sex is a thing is because everyone is an idiot. That is, the human brain was never designed to make long-term decisions or even think in the long term. Most people are incapable of thinking beyond 'OH BOY, OH BOY SEX SEX SEX', and thus, you have the current state of things.

Kopikatsu:

There are approximately 250,000,000 people above the age of 18 in the US. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that everyone has sex twice a month. That would mean that if all of them were to use contraceptives that were 99% effective, there would be 30 million failures over the course of a single year.

Well, no. Very much no.

Firstly, women past menopause (say, age 45+) can't get pregnant naturally. Secondly, quite a few people are for one or another reason infertile. Thirdly, plenty have had various bits of reproductive tubing snipped (although technically a form of contracpetion, I'm excluding it here). Fourthly, women are only generally able to be impregnated for about a week of each menstrual cycle. Fifthly, chances of impregnating are really quite low per sexual congress even in the right phase of the menstrual cycle. (That's why even young couples with trying hard to have a baby generally take 3+ months anyway). Sixthly, many people use more than one form of contraception (typically pill and condom).

Finally, the "99%" statistic is not actually accurate in the case of the pill. Rounded to the nearest integer it would be 100%. It's docked to 99% instead as to say 100% would be dangerously misleading, and 99.87% (or whatever it actually is) may be confusing for the numerically challenged. Condoms are about 98%.

Edit: For the record, I am against contraception. It gives a false sense of safety/security and leads to a very wide host of problems that are then put upon society as a whole.

Are you against safeties on guns and safety backups/procedures in nuclear power plants too?

Kopikatsu:

Blade_125:

Would you both be willing to do me a favour. Google Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is something taught in post secondary schools, and discusses needs of a human fromt he most basic and up. Sexual release is right at the base. It is something all animals need and is evolutionary in nature (the stronger the desire for sex the more likely a species is to reproduce and survive).

So your argument is ignorant. While it is possible to resist this, it is not easy. Have either of you ever been in a situation where you gave in? If you were able to resist I am sure after you went home you.. relieved your tention.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory (an actual theory, not a scientific theory) based on his educated opinion. But it's not more right than any of Freud's theories (By the way, pretty much everything Freud ever said was a load of bull. The only decent thing he contributed to psychology was a method of therapy.)

The hierarchy of needs is a philosophical view. It is not an objective truth, as there is nothing objective about it.

And no, I've never actually 'given in'. I've been offered, but I've never accepted because it would be exceedingly foolish to do so. There is one short term benefit and many, many potential long term consequences. It's interesting that the other guy was arguing that humans can rise above their base desires, which is why recreational sex is a thing, but you're arguing that humans can't rise above their base desires, which is why recreational sex is a thing.

The actual reason that recreational sex is a thing is because everyone is an idiot. That is, the human brain was never designed to make long-term decisions or even think in the long term. Most people are incapable of thinking beyond 'OH BOY, OH BOY SEX SEX SEX', and thus, you have the current state of things.

Well you are right on a few things. I wouldn't call Maslow a theory theory, and neither do many teachers, but I won't bother debating that here.

I am saying that it is hard to go above your base nature. Some people do, as you seem to have, but many do not. I have before too, although I went home to releave tention as I would bet dollars to donuts you did as well. Either way accomplishies the desires programmed into us by evolution.

Recreational sex isn't a thing because everyone is an idiot. It is a thing because we are human, or more apt we are all animals. Natural selection has hard wired (for lack of a better expression) this desire into us. You are correct in that we do not do as well in thinking long term when such a primal urge is presented. A starving person is going to have a hard time rationing food. You are teribly foolish to judge others on this, and if you deny yourself on a regular basis is isn't going to be healthy for your mental state.

I haven't read through your previous posts, I just wanted to point out your error on sex being all about choice. Are you arguing that everyone should not have sex unless they want to start a family?

Agema:

Kopikatsu:

There are approximately 250,000,000 people above the age of 18 in the US. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that everyone has sex twice a month. That would mean that if all of them were to use contraceptives that were 99% effective, there would be 30 million failures over the course of a single year.

Well, no. Very much no.

Firstly, women past menopause (say, age 45+) can't get pregnant naturally. Secondly, quite a few people are for one or another reason infertile. Thirdly, plenty have had various bits of reproductive tubing snipped (although technically a form of contracpetion, I'm excluding it here). Fourthly, women are only generally able to be impregnated for about a week of each menstrual cycle. Fifthly, chances of impregnating are really quite low per sexual congress even in the right phase of the menstrual cycle. (That's why even young couples with trying hard to have a baby generally take 3+ months anyway). Sixthly, many people use more than one form of contraception (typically pill and condom).

Finally, the "99%" statistic is not actually accurate in the case of the pill. Rounded to the nearest integer it would be 100%. It's docked to 99% instead as to say 100% would be dangerously misleading, and 99.87% (or whatever it actually is) may be confusing for the numerically challenged. Condoms are about 98%.

Edit: For the record, I am against contraception. It gives a false sense of safety/security and leads to a very wide host of problems that are then put upon society as a whole.

Are you against safeties on guns and safety backups/procedures in nuclear power plants too?

I own a host of revolvers, which don't have safeties. (Not that I agree with the analogy because all analogies are conceptually flawed)

And I'm not really sure how you're comparing a condom and a system to prevent a catastrophic meltdown that could potentially kill a great number of people and render the surrounding area uninhabitable for decades. But as I said, analogies are a pointless form of argument because they're inherently flawed.

In any case, you're arguing semantics. As my situation as hypothetical (and as stated as such), your objections do not apply. Had I provided hard numbers and stated 'This many people are sexually active using this form of contraception' as a fact, then your statement would be applicable. But as I did not, they do not.

lowhat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Interesting how America was sold on rhetoric that claimed that only making abortion legal and easily available would get rid of the supposedly widespread risk represented by women going to back alley abortion clinics(loaded misnomer if there ever was one), yet here we are in 2013 and only when the adult woman dies does this sort on Mengele-esque doctor have to face the music.

Hell, we have a president who sees nothing wrong with allowing quacks like Gosnell to continue their butchery even after the "clump of cells" has left the womb and is no longer oppressing the poor, victimized mother with its presence inside her. After all, it's much better that society turns a blind eye to what people like Gosnell do than to force women to be "punished with a baby".

The only solace to be had here is that by aborting 60 million and having to replace them with Latin American immigrants to maintain age cohorts capable of keeping the many government Ponzi schemes solvent, the sort of sick society that views licensing people like Gosnell as "progress" has sown the seeds of its own destruction.

Stop it, just stop.

This man was NOT a liscensed doctor. He was doing HORRIBLE things to both women and the potential human beings being aborted, more often than not, his procedures were completely illegal. THIS IS NOT HOW ABORTIONS HAPPEN. This guy was associated with drug dealers and his waiting room was covered in shit and blood. This man is not a doctor, and he does not represent them. This is a horrible person who was stopped, NOTHING MORE.

Blade_125:

I haven't read through your previous posts, I just wanted to point out your error on sex being all about choice. Are you arguing that everyone should not have sex unless they want to start a family?

That's right. For the record, I'm not a hypocrite, either. I plan to do just that (and only that).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked