Username [Register?]: | Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?
Bottom of Page
INTL v5.0 > Site Comments > Archives > Archived Forums > Serious Discussions: Too serious to have a double entendre in the title > The Abortion Thread (Mostly United States-centered) > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 1 guest.
Page: [ 1 2 3 ] [ Thread Views: 6827 | Total Posts: 64 ]
Rate This Thread: Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.831)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male
(Originally posted on: 04-05-05 10:33:13 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I wanted to start a thread centered around all the issues regarding birth control, contraception, and most specifically, abortion in the United States (and elsewhere, if people in other countries are willing to provide information). I didn't want to create something as inane as a poll because this issue is hardly relegated to black-and-white terms, and I won't present it as such. I will, however, post links that provide information on abortion issues from both sides throughout the course of this thread.

To begin the debate, do you think the state or federal governments have a vested interest in the reproductive habits of its citizens? Does the state/federal government, under this interest, have the power to regulate access to contraception and birth control due to this interest? When do the rights of citizens override this interest?

List of Links (will be updated as more people contribute links)

http://www.reproductiverights.org/courts.html

Relevant United States Cases (will be updated as more people contribute information)

    The Contraception Cases

  1. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): The Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to privacy (not specifically detailed in the document of the Constitution, mind you), derived from the "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights, encompasses the right of married persons to use contraceptives. Justice Goldberg, in concurrence, relied extensively on the Ninth Amendment (whatever powers not given to the federal or state governments are reserved for the people), which states that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not exhaustive.

  2. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972): The Court held that a statute that allowed the provision of contraceptives to married adults, while prohibiting it for unmarried adults, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (all citizens of the U.S. are entitled to equal protection under the law). In the course of its decision, the Court recognized that the right to privacy protects access to contraceptives for the married and unmarried alike. The opinion states, "If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

  3. Carey v. Population Services International (1977): The Court invalidated a New York statute making it a crime to sell or distribute contraceptives to minors under 16; for anyone other than a pharmacist to distribute contraceptives to anyone over 16; and for anyone to display or advertise contraceptives. The Court thus expanded the right to obtain and use contraceptives established in the Griswold and Eisenstadt to minors.

    Quoted from Justice Stevens' concurring opinion in Carey:
    Common sense indicates that many young people will engage in sexual activity regardless of what the New York Legislature does; and further, that the incidence of venereal disease and premarital pregnancy is affected by the availability or unavailability of contraceptives. Although young persons theoretically may avoid those harms by practicing total abstention, inevitably many will not. The statutory prohibition denies them and their parents a choice which, if available, would reduce their exposure to disease or unwanted pregnancy.

    The State's asserted justifications is a desire to inhibit sexual conduct by minors under 16. Appellants do not seriously contend that if contraceptives are available, significant numbers of minors who now abstain from sex will cease abstaining because they will no longer fear pregnancy or disease. Rather appellants' central argument is that the statute has the important symbolic effect of communicating disapproval of sexual activity by minors. In essence, therefore, the statute is defended as a form of propaganda, rather than a regulation of behavior.






As said above, as more information is made available, it will be added to this post. Hopefully, this will be an interesting and multi-faceted discussion!
rchif0: i love you
thecaveparable: why?
rchif0: good question
Dante

cocks in my mouth

Ballkicks: (+661 / -97)
Posts: 4779 (0.809)
Reg. Date: May 2004
Location: N by NW
Gender: Male
Reply 1 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-05-05 05:17:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I have a hard time feeling pain for a person that is yet to exist, and by all measureable means, cannot feel pain.

The idea that abortion would be used as a form of birth control, rather then a last resort, seems absurd to me. For that reason, I find it difficult to understand the right-wing point of view on this subject.
"There are only two things that I believe to be infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe."
- Albert Einstein
Alyantis
FEMALE

Ballkicks: (+89 / -25)
Posts: 1076 (0.162)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Too close to Ein
Gender: Male
Reply 2 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-05-05 06:58:20 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I feel that when you choose to have sex, you're taking a chance. If all of a sudden, a baby starts being made inside of you, it's your responsibility to take care of it. That's how I feel idealogically about the issue. It's not a matter of just killing a couple of cells in my opinion, it's a matter of killing a predeveloped human being.

Quote:
I find it difficult to understand the right-wing point of view on this subject


Most of the right wingers, of course are usually religious, but also feel that an innocent life shouldn't be killed. Of course, the definition of what is living becomes the central point of the debate most of the time. It's just a matter of where you draw the line.
I Cant Skat3: Well, I may be stupid. I'll let others decide that.
Dante

cocks in my mouth

Ballkicks: (+661 / -97)
Posts: 4779 (0.809)
Reg. Date: May 2004
Location: N by NW
Gender: Male
Reply 3 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-05-05 09:15:48 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Alyantis:
I feel that when you choose to have sex, you're taking a chance. If all of a sudden, a baby starts being made inside of you, it's your responsibility to take care of it. That's how I feel idealogically about the issue. It's not a matter of just killing a couple of cells in my opinion, it's a matter of killing a predeveloped human being.


I feel that playing God and having an abortion in this case may be the right course of action, if the lives of both the parents and the child would be relatively horrible.
"There are only two things that I believe to be infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe."
- Albert Einstein
Fried elephant semen
I am worthless

God damns all liars, Mary Warren.

Ballkicks: (+10 / -43)
Posts: 75 (0.013)
Reg. Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 4 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-06-05 12:48:31 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Dante:
I feel that playing God and having an abortion in this case may be the right course of action, if the lives of both the parents and the child would be relatively horrible.
I agree. My parents have 9 children because they do not believe in birth control. They also like to travel around the world making it very hard or impossible to properly take care of all their children. Personally I would of rather been killed as a barely or not at all living thing than to have grown up the way I have and lived a rough life and probably made my parents lives worse also.

In the Philipines the people have been easily convinced by the Catholic Church to not use contraceptives and not practice abortion. Over population is now a major reason why it is still a third world country. Even the president refuses to listen to her advisers over the Church and promote birth control.
It's supprising how many people have an imaginary friend named God.

Signs aren't stupid. You're just jelous cause you're probably a pisces or gemini or something shitty like that.
Mr Bounce


Ballkicks: (+95 / -37)
Posts: 1792 (0.273)
Reg. Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra, Australia
Gender: Male
Reply 5 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-06-05 04:34:00 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I think it should be everyone's own choice whether or not they want to use contraception or have abortions. I think that abortion, acting as a type of contraceptive by eliminating the odd accidental child, that a couple too lazy to use condoms have, is rediculous though.

This religious stuff about not using contraceptives is fine for you, but if you try and force that on people -- and the result is the increased spread of AIDS, needless abortions and teenage pregancies, your religion should fuck off (in the nicest way possible i'm a serial-killer :))
"If one wants to truly own, one must own in all games" - Pure Pwnage
Alyantis
FEMALE

Ballkicks: (+89 / -25)
Posts: 1076 (0.162)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Too close to Ein
Gender: Male
Reply 6 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-06-05 01:55:45 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I have nothing against people using condoms, and the pill is fine with me. I'm just saying, you know the risks even afterwords, and you should take responsibility should a child begin to form. Oh and by the way, I'm an athiest, religion does not play a role in my views of abortion.
I Cant Skat3: Well, I may be stupid. I'll let others decide that.
Spiff
!!!

gtfo

Ballkicks: (+258 / -11)
Posts: 1058 (0.174)
Reg. Date: Nov 2003
Location: Panel 2
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 7 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 12:51:07 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I think the most influence the government should be allowed to have over people's use of birth control and/or abortion is to inform the public of the risks involved. Like Alyantis said, if you take the risk, it's your own responsibility if something happens. The government should not add to the responsibility which already exists by making it less easy to be responsible, which is exactly what the regulation of contraceptive distribution does. It's like a school trying to cut down on truancy by making it easier for somebody to miss the bus in the morning.

The question of abortion is a little different. Some people's statement on abortion seems to be be badly phrased. They think it should be done "because we can," namely that it's a method of ending an unwanted pregnancy, so why not use it? This does nothing to address the conservative's critique that it's unethical, so I don't go by that rationale. Instead, I think abortion shouldn't be prohibited because such a prohibition would mean that the government has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her body. I believe that the government has no such right. Furthermore, it is hypocritical for the government to protect a fetus from the hazard of being aborted, and yet not protect it from other dangers. For example, a woman places her baby at the risk of severe health defects if she drinks alcohol or smokes or does drugs during her pregnancy. However, does anybody ever complain about stopping those things? Have the conservatives ever proposed a law making it illegal for a woman to drink alcohol or smoke during pregnancy? If so, I've certainly never heard of it. And if not, well, it's unacceptable that they'll condemn an abortion as a destruction of life but will do nothing to prevent someone from being born with a horrible illness.
drahnier
INTL VIP
:iceburn:

Ballkicks: (+886 / -232)
Posts: 7744 (1.158)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: purple haze
Gender: Female
Reply 8 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 06:08:30 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
if the lives of both the parents and the child would be relatively horrible.

I think saying that the childs life would have been horrible is completely irrelevant.

You don't know if it would have had a happy life, and you don't know if the child would have preferred the life it would have had over not having a life at all.
I think if you ask a person that has had a bad childhood if they would have preferred to be aborted before birth, most people will say no.

The only thing that really matters in this issue is whether it should be considered wrong or right to kill a newly developed fetus that's really just a small lump of cells.
And whether this fetus can be considered a human being with a right to life or not.

Personally, i'm not sure, but i'd probably pick the pro-abortion side if i had to choose.

Edit:
Interesting fact: Here in Sweden abortion isn't even an issue, because it's legal and there's no debate about it.
And anyone who opposes it is usually viewed as a religious nut or a horrible oppressor of women.
DRAHNIER
This reply was last edited on 04-07-05 06:15:00 PM by drahnier.
Guru


Ballkicks: (+66 / -21)
Posts: 540 (0.081)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Austin, Texas
Gender: Male
Reply 9 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 06:46:03 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Skye:

To begin the debate, do you think the state or federal governments have a vested interest in the reproductive habits of its citizens? Does the state/federal government, under this interest, have the power to regulate access to contraception and birth control due to this interest? When do the rights of citizens override this interest?


The first issue in my mind is whether or not anyone is being harmed by these practices, and abortion is the only issue in which one can strongly claim that anyone else (the fetus) is harmed as a result. For me the whole issue boils down to whether or not the fetus is a human being. If it is a human being, then abortion is murder, and if not, then it abortions is nothing more than a medical procedure. Trying to figure out whether the fetus is a human being is a bit trickier though. Most reasonable people would agree that the fetus right after conception is not a human being, but that the fetus shortly before birth is a human being. So at some point in the pregnancy, it became a human being. In my opinion the best place to define this is at seven weeks, when
brain development really gets underway. (I haven't read anything on this for a while, so if anyone has current information that places this at a different point, I'd be interested. So abortion should be legal before seven weeks and illegal afterwards in my opinion.

Contraceptives are fine and dandy, but the pill should be treated just like any other drug in terms of regulation and FDA approval.

Quoted from Dante:

I feel that playing God and having an abortion in this case may be the right course of action, if the lives of both the parents and the child would be relatively horrible.


How do you figure this? How can you claim to know that the child's life would be horrible? And even if it could be said with absolute certainty that the child would have a horrible life, how does that give anyone else the right to decide for him/her whether he/she lives or dies? That certainly seems to be a decision which no one is entitled to make for anyone else.

Quoted from Spiff:
Instead, I think abortion shouldn't be prohibited because such a prohibition would mean that the government has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her body.


I have to take issue with this argument. Assume for the sake of discussion that the fetus is a human being. Then the situation is that the woman created a human being, with a right to life. Neither she nor anyone else has the right to end that life. I agree that the woman has the right to do whatever she wishes with her body, but the fetus's right to life trumps that right. When people choose to have sex, they do so knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome, and agree to take on the responsibility for this outcome should it happen. Part of this responsibility means waiving certain rights on the woman's part.

Also from the legal perspective, the government already does this in regulating prescription drugs, and making other drugs illegal.

Quoted from Spiff:
Furthermore, it is hypocritical for the government to protect a fetus from the hazard of being aborted, and yet not protect it from other dangers. For example, a woman places her baby at the risk of severe health defects if she drinks alcohol or smokes or does drugs during her pregnancy. However, does anybody ever complain about stopping those things? Have the conservatives ever proposed a law making it illegal for a woman to drink alcohol or smoke during pregnancy? If so, I've certainly never heard of it. And if not, well, it's unacceptable that they'll condemn an abortion as a destruction of life but will do nothing to prevent someone from being born with a horrible illness.


This is a good point, but I would instead see this as an argument for further regulation on the government's part insteasd of an argument against abortion.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Dante

cocks in my mouth

Ballkicks: (+661 / -97)
Posts: 4779 (0.809)
Reg. Date: May 2004
Location: N by NW
Gender: Male
Reply 10 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 08:15:38 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Alyantis:
I have nothing against people using condoms, and the pill is fine with me. I'm just saying, you know the risks even afterwords, and you should take responsibility should a child begin to form.
Doesn't a parent also have the responsibity to take care of a child for 18 years? What if they are incapable of completing this obligation?

Quoted from Alyantis:
I'm an athiest, religion does not play a role in my views of abortion.
"Playing God" is only a figure of speech, and my opinion of the matter. Not that there's anything wrong with playing God.

Quoted from Guru:
Quoted from Dante:

I feel that playing God and having an abortion in this case may be the right course of action, if the lives of both the parents and the child would be relatively horrible.


How do you figure this? How can you claim to know that the child's life would be horrible? And even if it could be said with absolute certainty that the child would have a horrible life, how does that give anyone else the right to decide for him/her whether he/she lives or dies?
Quoted from Dante:
I have a hard time feeling pain for a person that is yet to exist.


Also, what about the case of a rape victim, who finds out they are pregnant after your seven weeks is up? Is it the responsibility of this woman to raise this child for 18 years, or is it within her realm of choice to "kill" this child yet to be alive?
"There are only two things that I believe to be infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe."
- Albert Einstein
Spiff
!!!

gtfo

Ballkicks: (+258 / -11)
Posts: 1058 (0.174)
Reg. Date: Nov 2003
Location: Panel 2
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 11 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 08:19:20 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Guru:
I have to take issue with this argument. Assume for the sake of discussion that the fetus is a human being. Then the situation is that the woman created a human being, with a right to life. Neither she nor anyone else has the right to end that life. I agree that the woman has the right to do whatever she wishes with her body, but the fetus's right to life trumps that right. When people choose to have sex, they do so knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome, and agree to take on the responsibility for this outcome should it happen. Part of this responsibility means waiving certain rights on the woman's part.

Also from the legal perspective, the government already does this in regulating prescription drugs, and making other drugs illegal.


What you say is true if you think of a fetus always as a human being. I do not think it becomes a human being at conception. I think there is a certain developmental stage where the fetus is not developed enough to be considered anything more than a parasitic bunch of cells. I agree that perhaps late-term abortion might be the killing of a sentient being, but if they are done early enough, it's not any more destructive than cutting out a tumor.

Besides, what if the woman has not voluntarily had sexual intercourse? Would you say it is just to dimish her rights despite her not having the opportunity to deny the responsibilities of carrying a child? Why should she be held accountable for something that's not her fault?

As for the government's regulations on drugs, the primary function of such action is to prevent abuse of the substances, and thereby harm to citizens. If the fetus is regarded as pre-sentient and pre-human, which is how I think it should be up to a point, an abortion is causing no harm to anybody. That being satisfied, the government is exceeding the limits of its mandate if it tries to regulate something without having any reason to besides subjective moral disapproval.
Dante

cocks in my mouth

Ballkicks: (+661 / -97)
Posts: 4779 (0.809)
Reg. Date: May 2004
Location: N by NW
Gender: Male
Reply 12 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 08:48:54 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Ultimately, I believe that the choice of whether or not a fetus is human at any point before it is legally alive is personal, and any type of legislation that would define a member of our species as existing before birth (and therefore benefiting pro-life ideologues) would severely hamper the liberty of a woman to execute this choice.
"There are only two things that I believe to be infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe."
- Albert Einstein
Alyantis
FEMALE

Ballkicks: (+89 / -25)
Posts: 1076 (0.162)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Too close to Ein
Gender: Male
Reply 13 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 08:57:03 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Doesn't a parent also have the responsibity to take care of a child for 18 years? What if they are incapable of completing this obligation?


Yes they do have the responsibilty. If they are incapable, it sucks doesn't it. Again, their are risks when engaging in sexual activity. One of them is a child, and you had better be prepared for it. If you're saying that people in a less financial state may not be capable of bring up that child, then on a practical scale my views on abortion can be wrong. Ideally, I am against abortion. However, it is a small issue to me, I would only "allow" abortions in the 1st trimester. It does in a way fuck over people's lives who aren't ready for a child. I don't feel sorry for them though, because they made the choice, and there are consequences to the choices we make.

Quote:
Ultimately, I believe that the choice of whether or not a fetus is human at any point before it is legally alive is personal, and any type of legislation that would define a member of our species as existing before birth (and therefore benefiting pro-life ideologues) would severely hamper the liberty of a woman to execute this choice.


That's really what it comes down to. I think what spiff said is what I would consider early enough abortion.
Quote:

What you say is true if you think of a fetus always as a human being. I do not think it becomes a human being at conception. I think there is a certain developmental stage where the fetus is not developed enough to be considered anything more than a parasitic bunch of cells. I agree that perhaps late-term abortion might be the killing of a sentient being, but if they are done early enough, it's not any more destructive than cutting out a tumor.


I Cant Skat3: Well, I may be stupid. I'll let others decide that.
Guru


Ballkicks: (+66 / -21)
Posts: 540 (0.081)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Austin, Texas
Gender: Male
Reply 14 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-07-05 10:36:40 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Dante:
Doesn't a parent also have the responsibity to take care of a child for 18 years? What if they are incapable of completing this obligation?


Adoption is an option. I would also ask what they're doing having sex in the first place. Like any action, sex carries consequences. If you're unable to deal with these consequences, then there is no reason you should be having sex.

Quoted from Dante:
Also, what about the case of a rape victim, who finds out they are pregnant after your seven weeks is up? Is it the responsibility of this woman to raise this child for 18 years, or is it within her realm of choice to "kill" this child yet to be alive?


I would imagine that in every instance of reported rape, the victim usually undergoes a thorough medical exam that would detect a pregnancy. Even if this didn't happen, the average menstural cycle is four weeks long, so even assuming it at the very end, that would still mean she was three weeks late, which is more than enough time to get tested and have the abortion. Also, should she choose to carry the child, she is still able to put it up for adoption. Lastly, how do the sins of the father reflect upon the child?

Quoted from Dante:
Ultimately, I believe that the choice of whether or not a fetus is human at any point before it is legally alive is personal, and any type of legislation that would define a member of our species as existing before birth (and therefore benefiting pro-life ideologues) would severely hamper the liberty of a woman to execute this choice.


I'm not sure I see how this is a personnal choice. I would instead see this as a scientific issue. One method one could use (that I don't agree with) to do this would be viability. The point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb is when it becomes legally a human. This would put it a roughly ~23 weeks. In addition, a decision that defined rights to a fetus at some point in pregnancy would benefit neither side of argument. It would abortion beyond that point, but it would also garuntee it before that point.

Quoted from Spiff:

What you say is true if you think of a fetus always as a human being. I do not think it becomes a human being at conception. I think there is a certain developmental stage where the fetus is not developed enough to be considered anything more than a parasitic bunch of cells. I agree that perhaps late-term abortion might be the killing of a sentient being, but if they are done early enough, it's not any more destructive than cutting out a tumor.


Agreed.

Quoted from Spiff:
Besides, what if the woman has not voluntarily had sexual intercourse? Would you say it is just to dimish her rights despite her not having the opportunity to deny the responsibilities of carrying a child? Why should she be held accountable for something that's not her fault?


Even in this event, I would say that after seven weeks, it is a human being, and for her to kill it would be murder. Yes, it really sucks for her, but the value of a life is not diminished by its origins, no matter how deplorable.

I also agree with your last paragraph.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
kayte
INTL Premium Member

How long until this becomes my new title let's count the seconds

Ballkicks: (+1019 / -241)
Posts: 4059 (0.667)
Reg. Date: Nov 2003
Location:
Gender: Female
Reply 15 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-08-05 04:20:17 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:

I would imagine that in every instance of reported rape, the victim usually undergoes a thorough medical exam that would detect a pregnancy. Even if this didn't happen, the average menstural cycle is four weeks long, so even assuming it at the very end, that would still mean she was three weeks late, which is more than enough time to get tested and have the abortion.


Um no buddy, see at the end of a month long cycle you're not three weeks late. :/ That would only happen after a full month and most women's cycles don't run like clockwork, and there is often blood spotting that can easily be mistaken for a period learn u some stuff ok?? A lot of women don't find out they're pregnant until the second or third month.

I think half of the problem with abortion legislation is that men are the ones in control of it.

Quote:

Adoption is an option. I would also ask what they're doing having sex in the first place. Like any action, sex carries consequences. If you're unable to deal with these consequences, then there is no reason you should be having sex.


WOW THAT'S AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT! Okay here's the thing, see, putting a baby up for adoption involves first having to spend 9 months of your life incubating the damned thing and some girls just aren't down with that. Second of all, there's no reason women need to be celibate. We're aware that there are consequences to sex. omg yah rite fag lol But guess what? Condoms and birth control aren't foolproof. And why isn't the guy "unable to deal with the consequences", because he isn't the one pregnant? Yeah, it's ALL HER FAULT.
Guru


Ballkicks: (+66 / -21)
Posts: 540 (0.081)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: Austin, Texas
Gender: Male
Reply 16 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-08-05 08:51:06 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Kayte:
Um no buddy, see at the end of a month long cycle you're not three weeks late. :/ That would only happen after a full month and most women's cycles don't run like clockwork, and there is often blood spotting that can easily be mistaken for a period learn u some stuff ok?? A lot of women don't find out they're pregnant until the second or third month.


I was referring to a woman finding out she was pregnant after seven weeks.

Quoted from Kayte:
And why isn't the guy "unable to deal with the consequences", because he isn't the one pregnant? Yeah, it's ALL HER FAULT.


Quote:
I would also ask what they're doing having sex in the first place. Like any action, sex carries consequences. If you're unable to deal with these consequences, then there is no reason you should be having sex.


I do believe "they" is plural and "you" is gender neutral.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Spiff
!!!

gtfo

Ballkicks: (+258 / -11)
Posts: 1058 (0.174)
Reg. Date: Nov 2003
Location: Panel 2
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 17 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-08-05 11:12:56 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Kayte brings up a good point, though. To make the consequences of an unexpected pregnancy purely the woman's responsibility is not an equal situation. In fact, laws which allows men's rights to be undamaged, but trumps women's rights in favor of a fetus would appear to be in violation of equal protection. If abortion is disallowed, a man contributing to pregnancy must be held equally responsible and be subject to a similar burden.

Therein lies the difficult part: how would the system imbue the man with a burden as difficult as carrying a child to term? Many people say "child support," but that only works assuming it can be collected. Requiring some other form of support for the pregnancy is equally faulty, as it's still a lot easier for the man to shirk his responsibility. In the absence of a truly equal solution, abortion does help to keep women's rights consistent with equal protection.
Smokey
INTL Premium Member
fuck this title

funkle smokey

Ballkicks: (+845 / -114)
Posts: 5205 (0.887)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Gender: Male
Reply 18 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-10-05 02:53:04 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from kayte:


WOW THAT'S AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT! Okay here's the thing, see, putting a baby up for adoption involves first having to spend 9 months of your life incubating the damned thing and some girls just aren't down with that.


Gee...that argument sure is going to win over the right to lifers who firmly believe you are killing a human life. "I'm going to deny my child a lifetime because I don't want to lose 9 months of my own."

Quoted from kayte:
Second of all, there's no reason women need to be celibate.


To not have babies...that's a good reason...and it's not the only one.

Quoted from kayte:
We're aware that there are consequences to sex.


There you go.

Quoted from kayte:
omg yah rite fag lol But guess what? Condoms and birth control aren't foolproof.


You seem aware of that too! There you go.

Quoted from kayte:
And why isn't the guy "unable to deal with the consequences", because he isn't the one pregnant? Yeah, it's ALL HER FAULT.


This wasn't a gender war until women and sexists made it one. The primary focus was the life of the child, not WOMEN ARE SLUTS AND IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT! Of course the man is just as much to blame as the woman and of course he should be held responsible for support and blah blah given the child is dilivered.

Now, I've been sitting on the fence for a long time but for every gender war that sparks because of this issue I get upset. I'm sorry nature made you guys the one to bear children but it shouldn't be about the WOMAN it should be about THE CHILD and whether or not it is moral to deny it life. I see the validity in both sides of that argument. Most of the female arguments for abortion I've been hearing lately are just purely and simply selfish...granted you aren't in the position to abort the child (I would imagine you'd think more about the fetus than you are now) but as it stands you are just WOMAN WOMAN WOMAN and the real point to the debate is lost in your man hating rants
If I can bludgeon a hooker to death and burry her in the desert, I sure as shit can punch a little girl and steal her shoes.
kayte
INTL Premium Member

How long until this becomes my new title let's count the seconds

Ballkicks: (+1019 / -241)
Posts: 4059 (0.667)
Reg. Date: Nov 2003
Location:
Gender: Female
Reply 19 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-11-05 11:42:58 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Quote:
WOW THAT'S AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT! Okay here's the thing, see, putting a baby up for adoption involves first having to spend 9 months of your life incubating the damned thing and some girls just aren't down with that.



Gee...that argument sure is going to win over the right to lifers who firmly believe you are killing a human life. "I'm going to deny my child a lifetime because I don't want to lose 9 months of my own


Is there a need to win over the right to lifers? Some people don't consider an inconvenient collection of cells to be their child, it's just a fact of life. Call it selfish if you want, but since people are inherently selfish I don't see why one should have to throw themselves on the cross to take care of something they don't want.

Quote:
Quote:
Second of all, there's no reason women need to be celibate.



To not have babies...that's a good reason...and it's not the only one.


Are you going to quit having sex so none of the women you're with end up pregnant? Probably not right, because at the most basic level, after your little deposit, it has nothing to do with you. Chicks like sex, okay? Why should guys get to have all the fun?

Quote:
Quote:
Second of all, there's no reason women need to be celibate.



To not have babies...that's a good reason...and it's not the only one.

Quote:
Quoted from kayte:We're aware that there are consequences to sex.



There you go.

Quote:
Quoted from kaytemm i wanna suck ur cock lolmg yah rite fag lol But guess what? Condoms and birth control aren't foolproof.



You seem aware of that too! There you go.


Did you have a point there, or do you just enjoy line-by-line responses? SEX HAS CONSEQUENCES! WOW! It's not like either of us just thought that up right now, Smokey. omg yah rite fag lol You seem to be aware that the various methods of birth control all have their failures, so why should I be denied the opportunity to rectify a mistake? The condom rips so I should just throw away the rest of my life because that's the "moral" thing to do? Whose morals?

Quote:

Now, I've been sitting on the fence for a long time but for every gender war that sparks because of this issue I get upset. I'm sorry nature made you guys the one to bear children but it shouldn't be about the WOMAN it should be about THE CHILD and whether or not it is moral to deny it life. I see the validity in both sides of that argument. Most of the female arguments for abortion I've been hearing lately are just purely and simply selfish...granted you aren't in the position to abort the child (I would imagine you'd think more about the fetus than you are now) but as it stands you are just WOMAN WOMAN WOMAN and the real point to the debate is lost in your man hating rants


Gender is at the very BASE of this debate, you nitwit. It HAS to be about women, because MEN. CAN'T. GET. PREGNANT. And therefore you will NEVER know what it is like to be in the position of having to make such an incredible choice, call it selfish all you fucking want but I refuse to believe that if you were a girl who got pregnant at the same age you are now, you wouldn't even consider abortion; you're not that morally superior.

I'm sorry that it can't all go towards your plan where the Big Strong Men can make all the decisions and "do the right thing" and "think about what's right for the child" (a whole other rant unto itself. Maybe to not have a child IS the right choice - not nearly as many kids get adopted as people seem to think. Is it really in the best interests of a child to be brought into a situation not capable of supporting it?) but at the end of the day the only control men have over women's bodies is in the laws they create. That in itself is scary enough.

And you do enough gender bashing for the both of us, so your final point is laughable tripe.
Smokey
INTL Premium Member
fuck this title

funkle smokey

Ballkicks: (+845 / -114)
Posts: 5205 (0.887)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Gender: Male
Reply 20 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-11-05 04:07:58 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from kayte:
Quote:
Quote:
WOW THAT'S AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT! Okay here's the thing, see, putting a baby up for adoption involves first having to spend 9 months of your life incubating the damned thing and some girls just aren't down with that.



Gee...that argument sure is going to win over the right to lifers who firmly believe you are killing a human life. "I'm going to deny my child a lifetime because I don't want to lose 9 months of my own


Is there a need to win over the right to lifers? Some people don't consider an inconvenient collection of cells to be their child, it's just a fact of life.


Right but not knowing is a pretty risky thing. Like if we were to magically prove now that abortion is infact murder in it's purest form...boy would the mood change, especially to the women who had the abortions.

Quote:


Are you going to quit having sex so none of the women you're with end up pregnant? Probably not right, because at the most basic level, after your little deposit, it has nothing to do with you. Chicks like sex, okay? Why should guys get to have all the fun?


They don't have to not have sex but there's good reason for them not to. We should be willing to pay the costs of our choices should worse come to worse. Me, I'd take care of a child, even raise it if that's what it came down to because I'm an adult and that's how I matured. You whining about "why should men get to have all the fun" is the argument of a 16 year old girl.



Quoted from kayte:
The condom rips so I should just throw away the rest of my life because that's the "moral" thing to do? Whose morals?


Humanitarian morals if abortion is murder. THE SAME FUCKING MORALS THAT HAVE YOU FUCKERS PREACHING ANIMAL RIGHTS MAYBE?

AGAIN I don't have a straight up position here...but I do know the arguments enough to know that anyone who really wanted to debate with you about the issue would rip you to fucking shreds.

Quoted from kayte:
Gender is at the very BASE of this debate, you nitwit.


No it isn't.

Quoted from kayte:
It HAS to be about women, because MEN. CAN'T. GET. PREGNANT.


Not all about women. The issue is an issue not because men are trying to control women, which is why gender is not the base of the debate. It's a debated issue because of the life of the child, that's what the debate is about, that's why it's an issue. If everyone knew and believed that there was nothing imoral about terminating the pregnancy, there would be no argument.

Quoted from kayte:
And therefore you will NEVER know what it is like to be in the position of having to make such an incredible choice


This is semantics but there are some extreme scenarios where choices of life and death can come into play and being human we can very easily grasp the incredible size of the choice because we aren't all stupid. Not to mention that this point is fucking irrlevant. A JUDGE WHO HAS NOT BEEN RAPED CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE RAPED AND THEREFORE IS NOT FIT TO JUDGE. That doesn't work.

Quoted from kayte:
call it selfish all you fucking want

I will, you pioneer you, because it is.

Quoted from kayte:
but I refuse to believe that if you were a girl who got pregnant at the same age you are now, you wouldn't even consider abortion; you're not that morally superior.


That's nice, but nobody said I was morally superior infact I clearly stated that I don't know and hold no firm position on the actual debate...however, this gender obsession from your side of the fence is over the top and with each line in this post you prove that more and more to me. How many pregnancies have you terminated, anyway?

Quoted from kayte:
I'm sorry that it can't all go towards your plan where the Big Strong Men can make all the decisions and "do the right thing" and "think about what's right for the child" (a whole other rant unto itself. Maybe to not have a child IS the right choice - not nearly as many kids get adopted as people seem to think. Is it really in the best interests of a child to be brought into a situation not capable of supporting it?) but at the end of the day the only control men have over women's bodies is in the laws they create. That in itself is scary enough.

And you do enough gender bashing for the both of us, so your final point is laughable tripe.


THANK YOU! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR VALIDATING MY POINT! Again, there are few if ANY (I have not met anyone or seen anyone on TV with this perspective that wasn't a fucking angry stupid woman feeling passionate about an issue she never thought about until she heard rosie odonell do a monologue on it) men out there who oppose abortion because they dont want women to have fucking choices. What era are you living in anyway? I just got finished ranting that I dislike the the whole gender emphasis here and the neglecting of the real issue being the life of the child and you're accusing me of having some sick fantasy where women are stripped of all choices and rights and that I've bashed your shitty, center dodging argument because I want to be the big strong man that controls you. I speak very freely with my problems with certain feminine traits on a personal level based on fucked expiriences but that doesn't mean that I'm on some opressive rage against the fundamental feminist movement.

You implied once that I think I'm the hero of the internet and that I'm not, and you're right of course. But on the same token, you're not a hero for women, and your position on this issue while maybe not altogether flawed (in its conclusion) is completely off fucking base and that conclusion, right or wrong, is reached without any sensible stance.
If I can bludgeon a hooker to death and burry her in the desert, I sure as shit can punch a little girl and steal her shoes.
Snowy
INTL Premium Member

i always try to make a statement with my fashion...thats why today i wore a crop top with a pic of richard nixon captioned: growl at sweat

Ballkicks: (+899 / -313)
Posts: 5399 (0.961)
Reg. Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodes
Gender: Female
Reply 21 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-11-05 06:23:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

The only woman who i've personally known to have had an abortion was a workmate who had an affair with a married man that also worked with us - she had a few days off work and treated it like a flu to be flushed from her system. But I know of plenty who have been wracked with guilt all their lives due to their decision via stories i've heard and documentaries i've seen.

Just to add myself to the general commentary, I am pro-choice but am not of the opinion that a baby would ruin a woman's life if it came at the wrong time. Your life is what you make of it, if you suddenly have a wee baby to care for you are still yourself and there are daycare centers and financial supports - you can still work and fuck and all that.

So I think if it's merely the fact that the timing is off...I think that's really quite horrific that you can take life to ensure your own 'quality' of life. I think i'd have a hard time staying friends with someone I know if they told me they were getting an abortion because they still wanted to have fun.

If you are the kind of person who never wanted children, very young or psycholgically damaged then im much more settled morally with my own pro-choice stance.
I'll wait all my life just for the rush[/whisper] | [whisper] The passing of fire into my blood
kayte
INTL Premium Member

How long until this becomes my new title let's count the seconds

Ballkicks: (+1019 / -241)
Posts: 4059 (0.667)
Reg. Date: Nov 2003
Location:
Gender: Female
Reply 22 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-11-05 06:37:14 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:

Right but not knowing is a pretty risky thing. Like if we were to magically prove now that abortion is infact murder in it's purest form...boy would the mood change, especially to the women who had the abortions.


Not knowing what? That was pretty much a non-sequitur. I don't think the "mood" needs to change for some people to think that "abortion is murder in it's purest form" - plenty of people already believe that, but then many don't. Are you saying if the US up and decided to make abortion equivalent to murder it would be applied retroactively and all women who had abortions would be considered murderers? What ARE you saying?

Quote:
They don't have to not have sex but there's good reason for them not to. We should be willing to pay the costs of our choices should worse come to worse. Me, I'd take care of a child, even raise it if that's what it came down to because I'm an adult and that's how I matured. You whining about "why should men get to have all the fun" is the argument of a 16 year old girl.


There's good reason not to do plenty of shit. There's good reason not to drink and drive but apparently we all don't abide by "good reasons" now do we?

You'd take care of a child. Well first of all in a hypothetical situation that's very easy to say. Second, well good for you. Not everyone is like you.

I wasn't whining, either. It was a simple point. :P

Quote:

Humanitarian morals if abortion is murder. THE SAME FUCKING MORALS THAT HAVE YOU FUCKERS PREACHING ANIMAL RIGHTS MAYBE?


That only works if you believe that abortion is murder. Again, many people simply don't believe that.

Quote:

AGAIN I don't have a straight up position here...but I do know the arguments enough to know that anyone who really wanted to debate with you about the issue would rip you to fucking shreds.



Yes, your argument is so airtight that you brought animal rights into it. WTF?

Quote:

Not all about women. The issue is an issue not because men are trying to control women, which is why gender is not the base of the debate. It's a debated issue because of the life of the child, that's what the debate is about, that's why it's an issue. If everyone knew and believed that there was nothing imoral about terminating the pregnancy, there would be no argument.



Honestly I don't even know what to say to that because first of all your language insinuates that you realize that there is an element of men trying to control women and secondly because obviously people are never going to agree on such a vague thing as what is moral, so why bother?

Quote:

This is semantics but there are some extreme scenarios where choices of life and death can come into play and being human we can very easily grasp the incredible size of the choice because we aren't all stupid. Not to mention that this point is fucking irrlevant. A JUDGE WHO HAS NOT BEEN RAPED CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE RAPED AND THEREFORE IS NOT FIT TO JUDGE. That doesn't work.


I'm pretty sure that 95%+ of the population can agree that RAPE IZ BAD! but seems like nobody can come to a solid consensus on abortion, which is why it's a much more slippery slope. It's not like the rape laws are in any danger of just being torn away by the next cranky conservative old white guy supreme court judges.

Quote:
fucking angry stupid woman


And *I'm* the one gender bashing. *chuckles*
kayte
INTL Premium Member

How long until this becomes my new title let's count the seconds

Ballkicks: (+1019 / -241)
Posts: 4059 (0.667)
Reg. Date: Nov 2003
Location:
Gender: Female
Reply 23 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-11-05 07:49:43 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:

AGAIN I don't have a straight up position here...but I do know the arguments enough to know that anyone who really wanted to debate with you about the issue would rip you to fucking shreds.


Now that I think about I should have just left it at the part where you acknowledged that you don't have a position and don't really know what you're talking about.
Awakened

LBH was here.

Ballkicks: (+8 / -3)
Posts: 38 (0.007)
Reg. Date: Apr 2005
Location: Within the pwn
Gender: Male
Reply 24 of 64 (Originally posted on: 04-11-05 09:32:27 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Birth control is a tricky subject for me because ideologically im against all forms of birth control and abortion because its preventing human potential from developing. However, I also understand that people are going to have sex and people cant take care of tons of kids so I would tolerate it and use condoms myself.

Its just that I always feel like were wasting potential that could help the human race but at the same time I can understand the reasons for birth control and abortions.

I think that if we could develop a strong social services system then maybe we could just hand over children to them. Of course a lot of problems could come of that which makes it more complicated.

So I guess im saying I wish people were able to take care of all their children and be responsible but that wont happen in the near future I dont think.

Im not religious so its nothing to do with that.
Still Working On It.....

*Dead Mexican illegal is reanimated and dances for viewing pleasure*
Quick Reply
Page: [ 1 2 3 ] Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 6827 | Total Posts: 64 ]