Unregistered1921
Registered Member
Whether or not to include or inform the potential father is also up to the pregnant.
What are your views on abortion?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Whether or not to include or inform the potential father is also up to the pregnant.
I'm so for it,
only under certain circumstances of course....like pregnancy.
only under certain circumstances of course....like pregnancy.
That should definitely happen more often than it does!!
But I do believe that the decision should be up to the mother AND the father.
I know that it is kind of silly to mandate this and expect it to always happen.
"Nope. He said he wants nothing to do with it and he left me. I don;t even know where he is."
..is easy enough to say.
But ideally and morally I think both potential parents should be involved in the decision (barring rape incidences, that is)
Contrary to what you might think, one raven, women are human beings, not walking uterus'.
I mean, come the fuck on. Does the fact that I allowed some dipshit to blow his load in me once mean that I have to spend the next 18 years of my life whelping his brat while he does whatever the fuck he wants?
Umm, I don't think so.
This is the 21st century, sweetie, not the 14th.
It has nothing at all to do with sexism.
It has to do with personal responsibility.
The child has TWO potential parents, not one.
The responsibility should be shared, the accountability should be shared.
If anything, it is the opposite of sexism because it comes from a desire for equality between the sexes on the matter.
Both the negative AND the positive sides.
Before you (or someone else asks), NO, I can not get pregnant and carry a child and distort my body and go through the emotional train wreck of pregnancy, so it will never be fully equal in that respect, but, not only is that NOT my fault, it also shouldn't give you any more right to that child and it's fate and life than I have.
Sure. When he's ready to carry it for nine months and raise the damn kid, sure.
It does.
Where are you when it comes to forcing a father to take responsibility for raising his child?
Oh, right, I plum forgot. She's the one who fucked up, she's the one who should carry the burden. He can walk on the fuck out, never pay child support, never take care of the kid, never be nothing for it, but when it comes to whether she should have the child? Oh well that's her responsibility.
Frankly raven, you're worse than a rapist. A rapist only invades his victim's body for a few minutes. You'd invade it for 9 months.
Pathetic.
Oh yes it should. You aren't obligated to do a damned thing for the kid - a mother is obligated to do everything. With extra responsibilities should come extra rights.
I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming you know me and how I think, because you are dead wrong.
I am FOR forcing the father to take responsibility and accountability of the child and it's future.
As I already said, "The responsibility should be shared, the accountability should be shared."
It seems that by your rationale, if the parents of a living child should split up the mother should have more of a right to the child than the father and should have full custody of it.
THAT, is sexism.
I am for sharing the responsibilty straight down the middle.
You are for giving the mother more consideration than the father.
How does that equate to ME being the sexist here?
I never said, "She's the one who fucked up, she's the one who should carry the burden. He can walk on the fuck out, never pay child support, never take care of the kid, never be nothing for it, but when it comes to whether she should have the child? Oh well that's her responsibility." Or anything even close to that.
Did you assume that was my stance since I am male?
I am the sexist, right?
That assumes that I'd care enough about you to assume anything.
You're FOR invading another human being's body. Sorry Raven, but that's what it boils down to.
I have very few principles and absolutely no morals. But there is one thing I believe in:
Humans should have the right to do whatever they please, so long as they don't interfere with another human's rights.
And you would violate this right in the most insidious and evil - yes, evil - way imaginable.
Quote where I said that, liar.
Straw man, you pencil-dicked homunculus.
I'm for giving every human an absolute right of dominion over their body, so long as they don't violate another's right to dominion.
I am for allowing every human medical care.
I am for freedom, for power, for dignity.
Another straw man. I never claimed they were.
Unregistered1921
Registered Member
one_raven,
all your posts are based on "should...would...could."
Whether or not to tell the man, whether or not to have the child, whether or not to do anything during the pregnancy is the choice of the woman and the woman alone.
That is just flat out wrong and makes no sense.
If anything it would be the opposite.
You would make assumptions about me because you DON'T care to know me at all.
You don't even WANT my opinion (since you answer my questions for me, before I have a chance myself).
Is it because you think you already have me pegged?
Do you WANT my opinion or do you not care at all what anyone thinks but you because you are never wrong?
It is quite obvious that you are assuming things about me and my character and opinons.
You asked me a question, then answered it for me.
A question that would require me to state my opinion on something that you could have NO CLUE to what my answer would be.
Of course, you answered it incorrectly.
No, you are wrong.
I am pro-choice, as I said earlier.
I agree 100%.
Which is why not allowing the father a say in whether the child should be aborted is immoral.
I superceeds the father's rights to the life and welfare of the child.
The government should not have any say in whether or not a child should be aborted, but the father should.
He has just as much interest in the child as the mother and that should be respected.
SHE is carrying it, yes.
Carrying THIER child.
I disagree
I am not a liar since I didn't say that you said that.
Did I?
What I DID say was, "It seems that by your rationale.."
And I STILL say it.
That seems like the logical conclusion to come to by applying your rationale that the mother should have sole discretion regarding whether THEIR child should be aborted.
First, grow up.
Second, if you want to qualify that statement, I will glady debate and elaborate.
We agree on this.
I know you didn't.
Again, I didn't say you did.
I wanted to point that out IN CASE you didn't know.
Your comment:
And your generally sexist combative attitude, gave me the impression that you may not.
Obviously it is her choice.
There is no way around that.
That is why I pointed out that a law about telling the father would not really be enforceable.
But I DO think (as a matter of morality) that she SHOULD include the father in the decision if he wants to be.
Xev, you are acting like women don't realise semen in their vaginas= babies.
Thats why women need to be selective, in nature males pursue females and the female usually has to fight them off unless they want babies with that particular male.
I'm for abortion, but only because there are to many babies, not so you can go around hap-hazardly sexing dipshits.
Its pointless whining about how men don't have to carry babies and women do, thats the way it is, if you don't like it become a sea horse.
All this means is women need to be more careful and they usually are, throughout the animal kingdom, but for some reason you have a huge problem with this, I don't see what you find so irresistable about dipshits.
Thats why women need to be selective, in nature males pursue females and the female usually has to fight them off unless they want babies with that particular male.
It should really, why not? Don't get boned by dipshits, ever heard of a thing called self control? Girls are supposed to possess this strange foriegn ability, so use it.
I'm for abortion, but only because there are to many babies, not so you can go around hap-hazardly sexing dipshits.
Its pointless whining about how men don't have to carry babies and women do, thats the way it is, if you don't like it become a sea horse.
All this means is women need to be more careful and they usually are, throughout the animal kingdom, but for some reason you have a huge problem with this, I don't see what you find so irresistable about dipshits.
cyborgrrl,
I agree with you here....
Unregistered1921
Registered Member
here's a fun note to throw in...
What If?
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030328/etceleb.shtml
"Post writes: 'Saddam was born in 1937 to a severely depressed mother. A recent widow, she was so distraught over the loss of both her husband and an older son, that she tried repeatedly to abort Saddam and to commit suicide. A neighboring Jewish family intervened and saved Saddam's life, but this family, who now lives in Tel Aviv, refuses to be identified because of fear of being blamed for allowing Saddam to be born.'
...This Saddam story reminded me an interview with a Jewish physician, who was a lifelong friend of Judy Garland's family. He told a Garland biographer that he persuaded Judy's father not to abort the fetus that became Judy Garland. Judy had a rough life, but the world was certainly a better place because she lived in it."
What If?
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030328/etceleb.shtml
"Post writes: 'Saddam was born in 1937 to a severely depressed mother. A recent widow, she was so distraught over the loss of both her husband and an older son, that she tried repeatedly to abort Saddam and to commit suicide. A neighboring Jewish family intervened and saved Saddam's life, but this family, who now lives in Tel Aviv, refuses to be identified because of fear of being blamed for allowing Saddam to be born.'
...This Saddam story reminded me an interview with a Jewish physician, who was a lifelong friend of Judy Garland's family. He told a Garland biographer that he persuaded Judy's father not to abort the fetus that became Judy Garland. Judy had a rough life, but the world was certainly a better place because she lived in it."
In order to make those kinds of arguments, you really have to subscribe to the idea that people are born with inborn traits - i.e., that Judy Garland was born to be "the" Judy Garland and that Saddam Hussein was born to be a dictator. I actually think it's much scarier that a doctor has to fear for his life because people would blame him for allowing someone to be born, as though no other people in Hussein's or Hitler's lives had any bearing on who they became.
If the child that we know grew up to be Garland had been aborted, I'm not so sure there still wouldn't have been a Judy Garland. On the spectrum, I'm much more of a "cultural determinist" than a biological determinist. I tend to think that someone would have grown up to become a vicious dictator - and precisely which baby it was really doesn't matter. I'm not saying that everything is predetermined - not at all - just that, from my point of view, we need to take more responsibility for the social conditions that people live in - and change the ones that tend to create the most violence, oppression, and tyranny. It's just too easy to blame the birth or death of an individual person. It leaves everyone else off the hook.
If the child that we know grew up to be Garland had been aborted, I'm not so sure there still wouldn't have been a Judy Garland. On the spectrum, I'm much more of a "cultural determinist" than a biological determinist. I tend to think that someone would have grown up to become a vicious dictator - and precisely which baby it was really doesn't matter. I'm not saying that everything is predetermined - not at all - just that, from my point of view, we need to take more responsibility for the social conditions that people live in - and change the ones that tend to create the most violence, oppression, and tyranny. It's just too easy to blame the birth or death of an individual person. It leaves everyone else off the hook.
If someone is born in a distressed family, it is very likely that this person won't be so nice after growing up.... So, it is not really a matter of predestination in this sense, but more a matter of relationships during childhood and teen years...
Wow, what began as a great topic for a thread has turned into a sparring match of insults, personal opinions and your every day BS! No wonder some have gone out on orders from god to shoot doctors who commit the greatest sin in their eyes, abortion. This topic really disturbs people.
Never one to back down from a good heated debate, I will offer my two cents.
Once upon a time I was pro-choice. I figured it was a womans choice to do what she felt was the right thing to do. Thats a pretty logical argument, and when you throw in the case made for rape victims, health problems associated with a birth etc. etc. it's easy to conclude -- excluding the religious argument -- that there are cases when abortion is justified.
I don't want the religious fanatics to jump all over me here so just consider for a moment that I am choosing to leave the religious argument out of this particular debate because, just like abortion, it is also a choice.
Now, a few years back I began to change my outlook on everything, especially the role of man on this planet. No one has dedicated much to solving that question and I think it is obvious why, it goes contrary to all our beliefs, especially religion. The anthropocentric view provides a comfortable bubble to remove us from what we consider nature, as if we are not part of it. Besides, nature is ours to concquer, for human benefit, at all costs imaginable.
Well -- and this is where the whole thing will fall into place -- I believe that view is destructive to our environment and, ultimately, society as a whole. Abortion is the quintessential anthropocentric view put into practice but, it crosses the imagined line of sacrificing nature to make room for humans, now we are sacrificing humans to make room for humans. For the most part this is not done for survival but rather for convenience.
Human dominance on this planet is an oxymoron. Consider that everything man has tried to do on this planet, that involves manipulating and changing the nature of things for our benefit, has been F**KED up. The only authority on natural processess on earth is -- no not god -- mother nature.
I haven't made up my mind yet, but considering what I have just presented, it seems appropriate to allow all of mother natures processess, good or bad, to exist.
Also, someone had mentioned the over population problem in China. Well, to emphasize my point consider that the working eco-footprint of the world is at - 0.1 ha. p/p. That suggests the world is not overpopulated but, because of our perceived human dominance, we have borders that create overpopulation.
Well, thats my two cents.
Never one to back down from a good heated debate, I will offer my two cents.
Once upon a time I was pro-choice. I figured it was a womans choice to do what she felt was the right thing to do. Thats a pretty logical argument, and when you throw in the case made for rape victims, health problems associated with a birth etc. etc. it's easy to conclude -- excluding the religious argument -- that there are cases when abortion is justified.
I don't want the religious fanatics to jump all over me here so just consider for a moment that I am choosing to leave the religious argument out of this particular debate because, just like abortion, it is also a choice.
Now, a few years back I began to change my outlook on everything, especially the role of man on this planet. No one has dedicated much to solving that question and I think it is obvious why, it goes contrary to all our beliefs, especially religion. The anthropocentric view provides a comfortable bubble to remove us from what we consider nature, as if we are not part of it. Besides, nature is ours to concquer, for human benefit, at all costs imaginable.
Well -- and this is where the whole thing will fall into place -- I believe that view is destructive to our environment and, ultimately, society as a whole. Abortion is the quintessential anthropocentric view put into practice but, it crosses the imagined line of sacrificing nature to make room for humans, now we are sacrificing humans to make room for humans. For the most part this is not done for survival but rather for convenience.
Human dominance on this planet is an oxymoron. Consider that everything man has tried to do on this planet, that involves manipulating and changing the nature of things for our benefit, has been F**KED up. The only authority on natural processess on earth is -- no not god -- mother nature.
I haven't made up my mind yet, but considering what I have just presented, it seems appropriate to allow all of mother natures processess, good or bad, to exist.
Also, someone had mentioned the over population problem in China. Well, to emphasize my point consider that the working eco-footprint of the world is at - 0.1 ha. p/p. That suggests the world is not overpopulated but, because of our perceived human dominance, we have borders that create overpopulation.
Well, thats my two cents.
Last edited: