leopold99 said:
There's nothing wrong with a person loving their country. I mean I know that plenty of Germans think Germany is the best place in the planet. That goes for a lot of other people as well from different places.
Is Abortion a right someone should have?
- Thread starter hug-a-tree
- Start date
There's nothing wrong with a person loving their country. I mean I know that plenty of Germans think Germany is the best place in the planet. That goes for a lot of other people as well from different places.
hug-a-tree said:
And germans are considered highly arrogant for it. This misplaced pride also results in phenomena such as not willing to learn other languages or cultures. same for the French etc.
national pride is a highly negative force.
anyhoo...nationalism hasn't been around forever.
spuriousmonkey said:
I've always viewed nationalism as a remnant and an expression
of tribalism...
Its the same emotion that people dedicated to a particular sports team
experience or what people that are part of an inclusionary group feel
about their own group vs. those outside of the group.
Acedemics, Political groups and even egalitarians also have this
though its expressed in ideological terms the net effects are the
same as it gives them an ingroup to belong to and an outgroup to
view in the context of otherness.
At one time, nation-states were made up essentially of ethnies, and defended genetic interests—even if in not so many words. Nation states acted naturally in what they took to be the benefit of their citizens, defending national territory against invasion, armed or unarmed. Dr. Salter notes that “the nation state is a psychological substitute for the primordial band and tribe,” and that “the political rhetoric of national identity and mobilization is rich in kinship metaphors such as the founding fathers, the motherland, brothers-in-arms, and fraternity.” No other appeal can elicit the same kind of devotion or sacrifice.
Dr. Salter adds that by today’s standards nation-states were frankly xenophobic: “In the past ethnocentric culture has usually been adaptive. Indoctrination is a powerful strategy for encouraging ethnocentric thinking, one that allows leaders to mobilize the community for defense.” Mobilization can go too far, and lead to aggressive war that wastes lives even if it adds territory, but some level of nationalism is necessary for any people to maintain itself.
Some view nationalism such as Germany's to be noble and an
admirable and laudable trait. In England its against the law for
Englishman to fly the British flag, but other ethnies are allowed to
fly their home countries (not England) flag. I'd much more respect
a proud and haughty nationalism than a self-loathing apologetic
trend surfer.
Whoops. I'm screwed.TheAlphaWolf said:
On topic: It's not a child until it exits the womb. Prior to that, it is a zygote, embryo, whatever you call it. Thus, it is part of the mother, and technically still is until you cut the umbilical cord.
If you don't want you or your wife or your girlfriend to get an abortion, then don't. Don't force other women to have children they don't want because of a slight accident involving a malfunctioning condom.
i never said there washug-a-tree said:
but to think that there will be one country is rediculous, it will never happen
and you are right, during ww2 germany was the most technologicaly advanced country on the planet. she also had a world class military.
i just hope the people of germany never allows another hitler to come to power there.
Baron Max said:I think we should all get together and tell all women what to do with their bodies and with their lives. If they fuck, and get pregnant, we should force them to have the child even if they can't afford it. ...and in so doing, we force them to fuck up their entire lives just for a few moments of sexual pleasure. That'll teach the bitch!!
Baron Max
Ever heard of adoption?
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
ever heard of the hundreds of thousands of children up for adoption in the US alone?
TheAlphaWolf said:
Better than hundreds of thousands of fetus' being terminated.
Having an abortion because you can't financially provide for the baby is disgusting, put it up for adoption. However, if you were raped, that's another story. Although, when you look at the statistics, the vast majority of abortions are due to the mother just not wanting the child or can't support the child financially. What needs to happen is more education, it's as simple as don't get fucking pregnant if you can't support the child.
Oh, what complete Bullshit.QuarkMoon said:
Six Goddamn pages and people still think the women that are having abortions got pregnant on purpose or because they weren’t being responsible.
In case you haven’t worked it out yet, the women having abortions are the ones that don’t want children, they are the responsible ones using the protection and taking the pill. They’re not exactly running around, smashed off their faces, screwing any man they can find without protection.
Do you think these women purposefully got themselves pregnant and then decided they couldn't afford a child and had an abortion, QuarkMoon?
Do you really think they wanted to get pregnant?
Do you think they had a choice?
QuarkMoon said:
I gotta agree--what bullshit! I'm sure the baby that you care so much for that you don't abort can have a wonderful life as an orphan who may or may not be adopted. I mean, who cares what happens to the brat after you give it up for adoption? I can soothe my conscience by saying "At least I didn't abort unlike all those evil evil women. I'm such an angel."
Q
Qorl
Guest
Is Abortion a right someone should have?
-Would you chose freedom or slavery? Do you like to eat a penguin?
Somebody should give advice to this woman's, but I believe that people should have a freedom to chose. We all learn from mistakes, sooner or latter.
-Would you chose freedom or slavery? Do you like to eat a penguin?
Somebody should give advice to this woman's, but I believe that people should have a freedom to chose. We all learn from mistakes, sooner or latter.
Nysse said:
There is only one way to get pregnant, and that's sexual intercourse (ignore artificial insemination). There is only two ways to have sexual intercourse, consensual and rape. In the case of rape, it is fine to have an abortion. But when a women is having consensual sex, and the dumbass gets pregnant before they or their partner can take care of the child, they should not be given the power of abortion to bail them out, adoption is the next best thing to fix their stupid mistake. And if they were smart and used protection, than we wouldn't be having this debate. Sperm doesn't just magically pass through a condom, birth control pills are 99% effective. The chances of getting pregnant when condoms and birth control pills are used is extremely small, so don't give me that shit.
purple_hairstreak said:
LOL
Are you seriously going to try to compare the morality between aborting a fetus and putting a child up for adoption? I'm floored.
Abortion existed long before Roe v Wade in the United States. Most people having abortions do not set out to get pregnant. What remains is women have a choice, though there are factions trying to take that away.
One can argue that life begins before the woman is aware an egg has attached to her womb, but this argument does not hold true. That same 'life', outside of this attached existence cannot breath air to survive. Cannot take food in thru its digestive organs. The factor that allows the embryo food and air is its attachment to the wombs wall. The human embryo is not even as independent as a birds egg incubating within the shell.
Human life is able to breath air, eat food, and provide its own basic body functions outside of this attached existence. Most abortions are done within the time period that the cellular development does not allow for survival of this embryo detached from the womb even with all that medicine can provide for a premature birth.
Economic factors are as valid as any other factor in this kind of a decision. The economics of a parent have a decidedly positive or negative effect on the quality of life that child will endure. Economics of the parent decide food, shelter, clothing, education and a host of other factors that are best defined by the individual who will be responsible for these conditions, on what is acceptable when undertaking such a lifelong decision as to whether one should bring a child into the world.
So what is suggested by denial of abortion is forcing a woman to give birth to a child is singularly for the benefit of some peoples idealisms on what is life and what isnt, without regard to the idealisms of the person who would be denied this right of privacy.
No one is forced by government mandate to have an abortion. As far as I know, no doctors are forced to provide this service.
Yes, abortion is a right. No woman should be forced by government to become a parent, or to bring a child into the world.
One can argue that life begins before the woman is aware an egg has attached to her womb, but this argument does not hold true. That same 'life', outside of this attached existence cannot breath air to survive. Cannot take food in thru its digestive organs. The factor that allows the embryo food and air is its attachment to the wombs wall. The human embryo is not even as independent as a birds egg incubating within the shell.
Human life is able to breath air, eat food, and provide its own basic body functions outside of this attached existence. Most abortions are done within the time period that the cellular development does not allow for survival of this embryo detached from the womb even with all that medicine can provide for a premature birth.
Economic factors are as valid as any other factor in this kind of a decision. The economics of a parent have a decidedly positive or negative effect on the quality of life that child will endure. Economics of the parent decide food, shelter, clothing, education and a host of other factors that are best defined by the individual who will be responsible for these conditions, on what is acceptable when undertaking such a lifelong decision as to whether one should bring a child into the world.
So what is suggested by denial of abortion is forcing a woman to give birth to a child is singularly for the benefit of some peoples idealisms on what is life and what isnt, without regard to the idealisms of the person who would be denied this right of privacy.
No one is forced by government mandate to have an abortion. As far as I know, no doctors are forced to provide this service.
Yes, abortion is a right. No woman should be forced by government to become a parent, or to bring a child into the world.
leopold99 said:
Could've happened anywhere.