Abortion

[Asguard]

oh because all condoms work????????

Orleander stop living in a dream land, I have had a condom BREAK on me. Luckly my partner was smart enough to go and get the morning after pill straight away but if she had CHOSEN not to and if we had no emotional involvment and SHE chose to keep the baby when i didnt wish to that would be on HER head and not mine.

 

[Tiassa]

Stop assigning motives to people. What are you, the Amazing Kreskin?

Its a fair statement. I find it strange that you should be making that complaint. In the first place, if you read through this discussion you'll find a lot of randomly-assigned beliefs and motivations justifying the anti-abortion argument. In addition, you've done that quite a bit in our various arguments.

There's a difference between something random (e.g., "You support Bush? You're just a fascist who likes murder and fraud!") and something more reasonably derived (e.g., "You supported the Iraq invasion for false pretenses? Any reason to kill people, eh?"). In this case, Repo's assessment of the motives of the anti-abortion argument are not an assignation, but, rather, an observation of the argument put forward.

THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN SUPPORTING THE EXECUTION OF CONVICTED MURDERERS AND BEING AGAINST KILLING BABIES.

Who said this is about killing babies. Stop assigning motives to people. Who are you, the Amazing Kreskin?

What about the idea of providing an honest argument do you find so repugnant? Oh, wait, I suppose I should be fair and not assign repugnance as your motive. Why won't you put up an honest argument?

So if a woman decides to abort her full term infant, while she's in labor because she's pissed at the biological father, no problem?

I'd be interested to see the citation on that. You're prone to simplification as well as exaggeration—see question about honest argument above—so I'm imagining there's something more to that.

Oh, right, it's one of your random hypotheticals? Well, some doctors might perform the procedure; others might stall under the pretense of preparing for a different procedure and hope to get out of it; some might outright refuse, citing obscure grounds for the health of he mother. On that last, you do still need to get the corpse out of the mother.

I also wanted to comment on this:

Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you has bad motives, is a misogynist, and want to control women is the same as an anti-abortion person saying all those in favor of abortion are evil. It's the demonization of your opponents that makes you the same.

The misogyny comes from two points: first, one is suspending a woman's authority over her own body. That's not inherently misogynist, but then, this is a sex-specific suspension of self-governance. Secondly, all of the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument depends on the denigration of women. You've taken part in this with your concern about women and their sexual partners. And also with your stupid example above ("because she's pissed at the biological father").

So yes, it is misogyny. And it is absolutely sick when conservatives like yourself and Kadark go around whining about the assignation of motives. It's like you're freaking children. Someone points out that conservatives are tilting windmills by assigning other people's motives and suddenly conservatives start complaining that people are assigning their motives.

But I'm used to that particular dishonesty from conservatives. It's one of the reasons I'll never be one.

 

[pjdude1219]

Its a fair statement. I find it strange that you should be making that complaint. In the first place, if you read through this discussion you'll find a lot of randomly-assigned beliefs and motivations justifying the anti-abortion argument. In addition, you've done that quite a bit in our various arguments.

There's a difference between something random (e.g., "You support Bush? You're just a fascist who likes murder and fraud!") and something more reasonably derived (e.g., "You supported the Iraq invasion for false pretenses? Any reason to kill people, eh?"). In this case, Repo's assessment of the motives of the anti-abortion argument are not an assignation, but, rather, an observation of the argument put forward.



Who said this is about killing babies. Stop assigning motives to people. Who are you, the Amazing Kreskin?

What about the idea of providing an honest argument do you find so repugnant? Oh, wait, I suppose I should be fair and not assign repugnance as your motive. Why won't you put up an honest argument?



I'd be interested to see the citation on that. You're prone to simplification as well as exaggeration—see question about honest argument above—so I'm imagining there's something more to that.

Oh, right, it's one of your random hypotheticals? Well, some doctors might perform the procedure; others might stall under the pretense of preparing for a different procedure and hope to get out of it; some might outright refuse, citing obscure grounds for the health of he mother. On that last, you do still need to get the corpse out of the mother.

I also wanted to comment on this:



The misogyny comes from two points: first, one is suspending a woman's authority over her own body. That's not inherently misogynist, but then, this is a sex-specific suspension of self-governance. Secondly, all of the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument depends on the denigration of women. You've taken part in this with your concern about women and their sexual partners. And also with your stupid example above ("because she's pissed at the biological father").

So yes, it is misogyny. And it is absolutely sick when conservatives like yourself and Kadark go around whining about the assignation of motives. It's like you're freaking children. Someone points out that conservatives are tilting windmills by assigning other people's motives and suddenly conservatives start complaining that people are assigning their motives.

But I'm used to that particular dishonesty from conservatives. It's one of the reasons I'll never be one.

you do relieze the anti abortionists cannot admit all they want to do is force their morals on others

 

[Tiassa]

That's one way of putting it

you do relieze the anti abortionists cannot admit all they want to do is force their morals on others

That is one way of putting it. For myself, it's a big part of why I've never agreed with conservatives.

I tell a story sometimes about an old Doonesbury, where Joanie and Rick are watching videotapes (beta, I think) of the Watergate hearings. Jeff is maybe five years old, and I forget who's testifying, but he suddenly turns to his parents and says, "That man's lying right now, isn't he?" And Rick does the whole "Yes!" fist-clench, and Joanie cries out, "O! Fresh eyes!" I vaguely remember the 1980 election cycle. Ronald Reagan was so condescending, so violative of what my parents, grandparents, teachers, and Sunday-school exposure had taught me about how to be good and honest that it was, to my memory, the first time I ever took a political stand. I didn't think that man should be president because he wasn't nice, and he wasn't honest. Conservatives have never climbed out of that hole. Its only been a downhill slide since then.

Furthermore, I grew up trying under a Reagan Republican always wondering why the things expected of me so contradicted those politics. Whenever I acted like a Republican, even my Republican father was repulsed.

The comparative is that I find it unfortunate that politics is such a nasty game. I'm a liberal because that's where societal progress has come from through history. That the body of ideas a bunch of dishonest conservatives call liberalism makes for problematic justification, and only reminds that there are few true liberals among the Democratic Party.

In the meantime, some of the obligations of liberalism are challenging. I don't like late-term abortions. But I don't own anyone else's body. Just like I don't like Christianity, but I don't own anyone else's mind. I find many Republicans' opinions and general outlooks disturbing—our neighbor Madanthonywayne is an example of that—but its his right to be wrong. And yes, he is hurting people by it, but that's one of the tolls of a free society. In the end, harm reduction is simply part of the vigilance that is the price of freedom. And compared to some of the other tolls exacted, it's not a huge burden.

One of the things the anti-abortion people don't seem to understand is that if liberals could bring about a society in which there are zero abortions, period, we would. But it's far too expensive° a vision for our conservative neighbors to agree to, especially since it involves some broad social experimentation. We cannot, after all, expect our vision and program at the outset to succeed all the way through; some adjustments and reformulations will be necessary, and yes, people will suffer for those failures. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try.
_____________________

Notes:

° far too expensive — And also controversial, insofar as conservatives would generally object that some of the necessary attitudes and perspectives required for any outcome near to success would be construed as violating their right to keep the rest of society ignorant and suffering.

 

[Orleander]

oh because all condoms work????????

Orleander stop living in a dream land, I have had a condom BREAK on me. Luckly my partner was smart enough to go and get the morning after pill straight away but if she had CHOSEN not to and if we had no emotional involvment and SHE chose to keep the baby when i didnt wish to that would be on HER head and not mine.

well, how convenient. "I'll get you pregnant, but if I don't want the baby, I get to walk away free and clear"
who's living in a dream land??

 

[Asguard]

i never said that, i said If i chose to offer to pay you to have an abortion and you chose not to thats YOUR decision and YOU wear the conquences. Your choice not mine by law so the results arent my problem either

 

[Orleander]

So either the woman gets an abortion or she raises the child on her own, because "Hey! I offered her money to get rid of it" If that were the case, why would any guy ever bother to wear a condom? Why would he ever care?
Quite the stand up guy you are. ....not.

 

[Asguard]

Why should i stand up for a one sided decision. Thats the price YOU pay for making the decision, either you make it together or you make it alone. If you make a joint decision then you both take the consequences, if one person makes it alone then on there head be it. Thats the way life works

 

[Orleander]

LOL, you actually think its supposed to be fair?! It will only be fair if you run the same risk of getting pregnant each time as the woman does.

 

[pjdude1219]

Why should i stand up for a one sided decision. Thats the price YOU pay for making the decision, either you make it together or you make it alone. If you make a joint decision then you both take the consequences, if one person makes it alone then on there head be it. Thats the way life works

As one PWAP (person with a penis) to another i would let the girl decide if she wants an abortion or not and than pitch either way

 

[Asguard]

So would I after putting in my opinion. However that doesnt mean the LAW should be written that way. I dont belive in forcing other people to follow MY ethics

 

[iceaura]

iceaura

I couldn't care less about their sex lives. It's the termination of a developing baby that worries me.

You aren't involved with that - so you can quit being "concerned" to the point that you call the police to teach others their responsibilities according to you.

Because it's quite obvious the fate of the "baby" is not the uppermost concern here, or anywhere this argument is taking place.

 

[rjr6]

you you please tell me how abortion victomizes woman?

Should all woman have abortions? Just a few times, until they have enough money, or success, to have a child? In general, do people form some type of negative opinion about the situation when the decision is made to abort a child?

Someone posted earlier, maybe you, about trying to control abortions (cause opposed to effect). Why is the advocacy of responsible sex not a deterrent? What is the best way to create strength of character in a child? Do they not learn from their enviorment?


Legalized Abortion (murdering a human being) in a broader notion victimizes us all, not just women.

 

[pjdude1219]

Should all woman have abortions? Just a few times, until they have enough money, or success, to have a child? In general, do people form some type of negative opinion about the situation when the decision is made to abort a child?

Someone posted earlier, maybe you, about trying to control abortions (cause opposed to effect). Why is the advocacy of responsible sex not a deterrent? What is the best way to create strength of character in a child? Do they not learn from their enviorment?

I could have left all the preceding out and stated:

Legalized Abortion in a broader notion victimizes us all, not just women.

probably because even if you practice responsible sex dumb luck will have it the girl might get pregnant and the couple may not be ready for a child and would still end up being the least harmful course over all would be an abortion.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm so lucky

Asguard

Knocking up a woman who won't have an abortion is one of the risks of heterosexual intercourse.

Think of it this way: My partner ...

• ... didn't take the pill ...
• ... didn't like condoms ...
• ... lied in order to keep our relationship together ...
• ... told me that she couldn't have a child by me unless she underwent a specific medical treatment (all of a shot) ...​

... and what did I say?

Nothin'. I didn't even stop to think about what it meant that she couldn't have a child by me°. I got on her and got laid pretty much whenever I could.

On a Saturday night, my partner and I went down to the Owl & Thistle in Seattle to watch what, as I recall, was the final gig for a local jazz band. We took the bus from the Wallingford neighborhood to a central point downtown and walked the remaining blocks. Once there, we proceeded to get really, really drunk. It was a wonderful show, and a good time was had by all. Leaving the bar, we got into a really stupid fight about what route to take back to the bus stop. She told me to go ahead and walk "my way". After years of buckling to her inconsistency and irrationality, and being quite drunk, I said, "Okay." And started walking back. As I made the first turn, she revealed that she was following me by yelling, "Doesn't it even matter to you that I'm carrying your baby inside me?" (Yes, I've told this story before, but it has so many contexts.)

Anyway, the next day, we talked about the situation a little more, and she had not yet been to a doctor to confirm the home test. I told her she should go to a doctor and make sure. She did on that Monday. Well, so to speak. She drank so much on Saturday and had such a hangover on Sunday that she collapsed at work on Monday and was taken to a nearby emergency clinic. All she needed was fluids, and it was confirmed that she was, indeed, pregnant.

Now, she had already decided that she was carrying this one to term, and enrolled in her health plan's prenatal program while she was at the clinic. None of this, mind you, would I have objected to. But here's the thing: when we talked about it Monday night, it stung. A number of things contributed to that, but the catalyst was that she had made the decision without telling me. It actually took me a few days to get over that and look at the situation objectively. What actually pissed me off is that she got drunk while she suspected she was pregnant, and was making all of her decisions, which are her prerogative, and the only reason I got to know she was pregnant was that she was drunk and pissed off and thought she could hurt me by telling me.

And that was the real issue that pissed me off. Yeah, I would have liked to have been told. I would have supported any decision she made because it's her body. And that's the thing: it's her body, and even though it was cruel and petty and stupid of her to conduct herself as she did, it was still her right. She never had to tell me. She could have had an abortion and never told me, and while the disrespect would have stung, let's face it, disrespect was and is one of her primary methods of dealing with me. And that modus operandi has absolutely nothing to do with her right to govern her body. Period.

And, in the end, I did get to have my say when I quashed the merest suggestion of adoption. That was my right. If a person I contributed to was going to come into the world, then I would be its father. Because once that child is in the world, then I have a say.

And yes, she could have made that difficult. She could have said she didn't know the father, and signed off adoption papers, and forced me to petition for paternity after the fact. And that would have been cruel and horrible and ridiculous, but that's the way it goes.

You don't have to respect who a woman is just because you slept with her. Heaven knows, the fact that I was banging her didn't change the fact that she was a duplicitous, spiteful, fill-in-the-insult-since-there-are-many-that-suffice.

And what I'm getting at is that no matter how dishonest she is, that no matter what, I don't get a say in what happens to the fetus.

If you think that sounds unfair, I can only reiterate the point: That is the risk that comes with heterosexual intercourse.

Sexually, I would have been better off finding a guy who could give me good orgasms. Because, and I'm pretty sure I've said it here before, the sex wasn't even that good with her. It's not entirely a joke to say that I could get better orgasms without her. As in alone. Just me, myself, and I. She was a lousy fuck. But I still did it. And in doing so, yes, I assumed the risk of knocking her up and having no say over whether or not she had the kid.

The best way to avoid that situation is to not have sex with a fertile woman. And given that I've heard before the excuse that, "She said she couldn't have children," I would further recommend that the best way to avoid the situation is to not have sex with women. You have hands, right? And I'm sure there's a nancy somewhere nearby who could rock your world.
____________________

Notes:

° what it meant that she couldn't have a child by me — Let us be clear that the problem was an Rh mismatch. Conception was not impossible. Miscarriages, however, were the rule. The question then arises, When does the miscarriage occur? The miscarriage results from an antibody response, and if the fetus develops enough before the antibody response occurs, it will fight back. And this can kill women. Doesn't happen often. But it can happen. I never really stopped to think about what it means. Hell, she was just making an excuse to not use condoms. It shouldn't matter that she didn't think through the health damage of repeated miscarriages. I mean, if I had simply bothered to look up what she was talking about, not only would I have had to make a point of ignoring the danger, but I would have realized what I should have realized: she'd already had the shot. I still don't understand how the misinformation came about; most people I know pay at least some attention to what a doctor is shooting into their bloodstream. Then again, I have a really cool daughter in large part because her mother is a two-bit, petty, lying .... Yeah. I have a really cool daughter because honesty is something her mother is, under mundane circumstances, generally incapable of. I'm so goddamn lucky. This story could have gone a whole lot worse.

 

[madanthonywayne]

But I'm used to that particular dishonesty from conservatives. It's one of the reasons I'll never be one.

I've always wondered what was holding you back. Sadly, if you don't have the stomach for rampant dishonesty, you'll just never make a good conservative. We could have really used you on the team, too. Think of what it would do to our average post length!

 

[iceaura]

Legalized Abortion (murdering a human being) in a broader notion victimizes us all, not just women.

So it ought to be easy to answer the question, which was how failing to ban abortions by law vicitmizes women.

You might start by showing us how women getting illegal abortions are better off, and less victimized, for example. Then on to demonstrating how women prevented from getting any abortions at all are saved from victimization by having no choice in the use of their bodies and lives like that.

Never mind the "murdering a human being" stuff, as your repetition of the phrase has yet to convince anyone that you actually believe that.

Why is the advocacy of responsible sex not a deterrent?

Now there's a question: as you are a fundie religios person (I'm guessing), you probably have some dogma about why God made people the way they are. So ask your dogma expert why God made people so that they do not now, and never have, listened to "advocacy of responsible sex" all the time.

 

[onlinerotter1]

abortion is in my way of thinking just an act of scarryness ( im sorry for my english ). i ment... before 100 years, dit u ever here in history about abortion.....or using condoms or whatever? dit u ever ask u self why "today" all this is happening?

 

[rjr6]

So it ought to be easy to answer the question, which was how failing to ban abortions by law vicitmizes women.

You might start by showing us how women getting illegal abortions are better off, and less victimized, for example. Then on to demonstrating how women prevented from getting any abortions at all are saved from victimization by having no choice in the use of their bodies and lives like that.

The scenario where a person may go outside the law and put themselves in harms way in doing so does not justify making the activity legal.

The lesser of two evils is a cowards argument.

Never mind the "murdering a human being" stuff, as your repetition of the phrase has yet to convince anyone that you actually believe that.

The fertilized egg is human life.

Now there's a question: as you are a fundie religios person (I'm guessing), you probably have some dogma about why God made people the way they are. So ask your dogma expert why God made people so that they do not now, and never have, listened to "advocacy of responsible sex" all the time.

People throughout time now and in the future will shirk their responsibility of being human. It will happen I imagine for always. Condoning this behavior (murder, in this case) with our laws is wrong.

 

[rjr6]

For you pro-choicer's, should selling of organs be legal? How about the sale of fetuses? If no, why not? How about prostitution? Should suicide be made legal? Should doctors perform it if the person wants to? And not just because of old age or sickness, this is important, for any reason at all? How about a minor without parental consent?

If you think pro-lifers are trying to place thier 'beliefs' on you and that you are 'holier-than-thou', and you answered no to the questions above please explain the apparent contradiction.