|
On June 16 2013 02:39 Passion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:34 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:30 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:28 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:26 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:20 jello_biafra wrote:On June 16 2013 02:13 Enki wrote:
If the woman want's to get it done, that should be that. Also, I hate the justification for aborting a child because it was a result of incest (consensual anyways, if that happens). There are plenty of children who are born everyday with disabilities that were known beforehand. Why don't we just kill all children who are going to be born with defects and keep the gene pool clean then? I really hate justifying abortion because of that. It's not about keeping the gene pool clean it's about stopping someone from living a horrible life because of some condition. That's a stupid reason, firstly the child or anyone else for that matter won't know how the child's life will turn out. If your reason is justification then people who want to kill themselves but can't because of some terrible condition and they ask someone to do it for them should be allowed to do it in the same country? Which isn't the case as euthanasia is banned in the UK and a lot of other countries as far as I understand it. On the topic of abortion its stupid how if the man wants a baby and the woman doest she can abort and the man loses their child. Reverse the roles and the man has to pay welfare checks until the child is 18 even though he didn't want it? Seems fair to me... If you reverse the roles you use a condom. I was referring to the point in time where the baby is already conceived by accident or whatever and one of the parents wants an abortion. Well as a man I think thats a small price to pay for not being discriminated against in most parts of life. I also think that as long as my body is unaffected I dont really have much say in the matter. (edited in the quote) People being able to legally murder your offspring is a small price? For not being discriminated against?! Not being discriminated is a right. That's why we don't discriminate women, men, jews or people with a different skin colour where I'm from. Are you serious?
I'm from sweden, its a very equal country. Sadly that doesnt change the fact that there's still discrimination against women. On average, men earn more money than women. Men hold most of the high positions both political and on the market. Recruiters ask women if they intend to have children during interviews and much more, despite laws against discrimination.
Its a long list, saying "we dont discriminate women" is wrong, no matter where you come from. Some countries are moving towards equality, but not a single one can actually claim to be there.
People with different skin colour and religion are also discriminated against all around the world, just because there are laws against it, or that you dont do it, doesnt mean its not happening.
Also I dont think its murder if its done before a set time limit, not that many who approves of abortion really does, otherwise they wouldnt call it abortion.
|
I don't believe that either are legitimate justifications for abortion, either before or after the 20 week limit.
|
On June 16 2013 02:27 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:18 Acertos wrote:
I wonder how 60 yrs old rich biggots with wives full of silicon can decide what s good for someone's life.
No im not talking about the baby, he doesnt even know hes alive. Im talking the 25yr old single lady who wants to abort or the couple because their child has a severe desease. Abortion should be possible everywhere because accidents can happen not only for rape and incest.
And suppose it talks about incests because they are the same biggots. A brother sister couple has a child. Ups the brother dies, the sister can abort because she cant take care of the baby but no if it was a normal couple the girl shouldnt have the right to abort. The sister shouldn't be able too either. If a child is conceived because you willingly opened your legs or didn't wrap your dick. Take care of it... Oh I bought a dog but I just lost my job. let's me just go take him out back with my shot gun....
How on earth can you compare a living dog already born with some non-living thing that doesn't feel and think. That's disgusting.
|
i would never do my sister but not because i wouldnt do her for the sake of doing, its just that i am so ugly she deserves better. when i look at pornbay fetish section this so called "incest" is pretty popular thou, even thou its just roleplay.
oh and impregnating a relative is pretty stupid with all the possibilities for disabilities.
rape on the other hand is just plain retarded and people who rape other people need to get their dick ripped out
so with this said i think abortion in a rape case is a reason that should be listened to. incest as reason for abortion...its really hard but i would say yes plus sterelize the idiot
|
On June 16 2013 02:43 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 01:56 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
First and foremost, abortion is a violation of life. HOWEVER, I think these are 2 valid points where abortion MAY BE allowed. I lol'd
Elaborate?
|
On June 16 2013 02:53 {ToT}ColmA wrote:
i would never do my sister but not because i wouldnt do her for the sake of doing, its just that i am so ugly she deserves better. when i look at pornbay fetish section this so called "incest" is pretty popular thou, even thou its just roleplay.
oh and impregnating a relative is pretty stupid with all the possibilities for disabilities.
rape on the other hand is just plain retarded and people who rape other people need to get their dick ripped out
so with this said i think abortion in a rape case is a reason that should be listened to. incest as reason for abortion...its really hard but i would say yes plus sterelize the idiot
This is the nicest most innocent thing I heard in the internet! Made me smile
|
On June 16 2013 02:57 Man with a Plan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:53 {ToT}ColmA wrote:
i would never do my sister but not because i wouldnt do her for the sake of doing, its just that i am so ugly she deserves better. when i look at pornbay fetish section this so called "incest" is pretty popular thou, even thou its just roleplay.
oh and impregnating a relative is pretty stupid with all the possibilities for disabilities.
rape on the other hand is just plain retarded and people who rape other people need to get their dick ripped out
so with this said i think abortion in a rape case is a reason that should be listened to. incest as reason for abortion...its really hard but i would say yes plus sterelize the idiot This is the nicest most innocent thing I heard in the internet! Made me smile
It was a pretty sweet post  .
|
On June 16 2013 02:46 Shai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:32 revel8 wrote:
I would always support the woman's right to choose. Making it an issue of choice is ridiculous. It's a question of the definition of life. Either you believe the fetus is alive and has rights, or you believe it is a condition of the mother.
I just don't think it is a decision that anyone should have the right to decide instead of the pregnant woman.
Sorry if you disagree.
I don't think it matters whether I believe the fetus is alive and has rights. I think what is pertinent is what the pregnant woman thinks on the issue.
|
On June 16 2013 02:03 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:00 cloneThorN wrote:On June 16 2013 01:56 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
First and foremost, abortion is a violation of life. HOWEVER, I think these are 2 valid points where abortion MAY BE allowed. Why do you think it's a violation of life? And why do you think you have the right to decide over other humans, if they should have abortions or not? Life is not fair, and definately not easy. It's a cruel world, and most of the time, things don't go as you want them to do.. Don't question the Son of God.
Don't question a giant bad-ass statue you mean?
|
On June 16 2013 02:58 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:46 Shai wrote:On June 16 2013 02:32 revel8 wrote:
I would always support the woman's right to choose. Making it an issue of choice is ridiculous. It's a question of the definition of life. Either you believe the fetus is alive and has rights, or you believe it is a condition of the mother. I just don't think it is a decision that anyone should have the right to decide instead of the pregnant woman. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think it matters whether I believe the fetus is alive and has rights. I think what is pertinent is what the pregnant woman thinks on the issue.
It being alive or not doesnt matter. Sperm is alive, bloodcells are alive. They are all living cells. The question is where you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a new organism.
|
On June 16 2013 02:46 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:39 Passion wrote:On June 16 2013 02:34 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:30 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:28 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:26 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:20 jello_biafra wrote:On June 16 2013 02:13 Enki wrote:
If the woman want's to get it done, that should be that. Also, I hate the justification for aborting a child because it was a result of incest (consensual anyways, if that happens). There are plenty of children who are born everyday with disabilities that were known beforehand. Why don't we just kill all children who are going to be born with defects and keep the gene pool clean then? I really hate justifying abortion because of that. It's not about keeping the gene pool clean it's about stopping someone from living a horrible life because of some condition. That's a stupid reason, firstly the child or anyone else for that matter won't know how the child's life will turn out. If your reason is justification then people who want to kill themselves but can't because of some terrible condition and they ask someone to do it for them should be allowed to do it in the same country? Which isn't the case as euthanasia is banned in the UK and a lot of other countries as far as I understand it. On the topic of abortion its stupid how if the man wants a baby and the woman doest she can abort and the man loses their child. Reverse the roles and the man has to pay welfare checks until the child is 18 even though he didn't want it? Seems fair to me... If you reverse the roles you use a condom. I was referring to the point in time where the baby is already conceived by accident or whatever and one of the parents wants an abortion. Well as a man I think thats a small price to pay for not being discriminated against in most parts of life. I also think that as long as my body is unaffected I dont really have much say in the matter. (edited in the quote) People being able to legally murder your offspring is a small price? For not being discriminated against?! Not being discriminated is a right. That's why we don't discriminate women, men, jews or people with a different skin colour where I'm from. Are you serious? I'm from sweden, its a very equal country. Sadly that doesnt change the fact that there's still discrimination against women. On average, men earn more money than women. Men hold most of the high positions both political and on the market. Recruiters ask women if they intend to have children during interviews and much more, despite laws against discrimination. Its a long list, saying "we dont discriminate women" is wrong, no matter where you come from. Some countries are moving towards equality, but not a single one can actually claim to be there. People with different skin colour and religion are also discriminated against all around the world, just because there are laws against it, or that you dont do it, doesnt mean its not happening. Also I dont think its murder if its done before a set time limit, not that many who approves of abortion really does, otherwise they wouldnt call it abortion.
Even if there's one or two cannibals in my country, that wouldn't have me say "we're cannibals". Because we're not, we don't eat human meat. Also, a lot of the differences you mention have a different origin (women being less suitable for the patriarchal leader roles that are the standard, their life choices, etc.).
Either way, you conveniently overlooked my main point; this not being a benefit up for bargain, its a right (even if it might not be the case a full 100% of the time all over the world).
On June 16 2013 03:03 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:58 revel8 wrote:On June 16 2013 02:46 Shai wrote:On June 16 2013 02:32 revel8 wrote:
I would always support the woman's right to choose. Making it an issue of choice is ridiculous. It's a question of the definition of life. Either you believe the fetus is alive and has rights, or you believe it is a condition of the mother. I just don't think it is a decision that anyone should have the right to decide instead of the pregnant woman. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think it matters whether I believe the fetus is alive and has rights. I think what is pertinent is what the pregnant woman thinks on the issue. It being alive or not doesnt matter. Sperm is alive, bloodcells are alive. They are all living cells. The question is where you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a new organism.
Which also brings up the topic of post-birth abortion, given that said organism will remain foetus-like dependent on the parents for almost two more decades.
|
On June 16 2013 03:03 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:58 revel8 wrote:On June 16 2013 02:46 Shai wrote:On June 16 2013 02:32 revel8 wrote:
I would always support the woman's right to choose. Making it an issue of choice is ridiculous. It's a question of the definition of life. Either you believe the fetus is alive and has rights, or you believe it is a condition of the mother. I just don't think it is a decision that anyone should have the right to decide instead of the pregnant woman. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think it matters whether I believe the fetus is alive and has rights. I think what is pertinent is what the pregnant woman thinks on the issue. It being alive or not doesnt matter. Sperm is alive, bloodcells are alive. They are all living cells. The question is where you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a new organism.
There's plenty of self-sufficient organisms (in the sense that they don't depend on a "mother" but on the eco-system they live in) that we kill off by the millions/billions.
IMO the question is where you draw the line between an organism and a sapient one and if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
|
On June 16 2013 02:46 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:39 Passion wrote:On June 16 2013 02:34 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:30 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:28 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:26 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:20 jello_biafra wrote:On June 16 2013 02:13 Enki wrote:
If the woman want's to get it done, that should be that. Also, I hate the justification for aborting a child because it was a result of incest (consensual anyways, if that happens). There are plenty of children who are born everyday with disabilities that were known beforehand. Why don't we just kill all children who are going to be born with defects and keep the gene pool clean then? I really hate justifying abortion because of that. It's not about keeping the gene pool clean it's about stopping someone from living a horrible life because of some condition. That's a stupid reason, firstly the child or anyone else for that matter won't know how the child's life will turn out. If your reason is justification then people who want to kill themselves but can't because of some terrible condition and they ask someone to do it for them should be allowed to do it in the same country? Which isn't the case as euthanasia is banned in the UK and a lot of other countries as far as I understand it. On the topic of abortion its stupid how if the man wants a baby and the woman doest she can abort and the man loses their child. Reverse the roles and the man has to pay welfare checks until the child is 18 even though he didn't want it? Seems fair to me... If you reverse the roles you use a condom. I was referring to the point in time where the baby is already conceived by accident or whatever and one of the parents wants an abortion. Well as a man I think thats a small price to pay for not being discriminated against in most parts of life. I also think that as long as my body is unaffected I dont really have much say in the matter. (edited in the quote) People being able to legally murder your offspring is a small price? For not being discriminated against?! Not being discriminated is a right. That's why we don't discriminate women, men, jews or people with a different skin colour where I'm from. Are you serious? I'm from sweden, its a very equal country. Sadly that doesnt change the fact that there's still discrimination against women. On average, men earn more money than women. Men hold most of the high positions both political and on the market. Recruiters ask women if they intend to have children during interviews and much more, despite laws against discrimination. Its a long list, saying "we dont discriminate women" is wrong, no matter where you come from. Some countries are moving towards equality, but not a single one can actually claim to be there. People with different skin colour and religion are also discriminated against all around the world, just because there are laws against it, or that you dont do it, doesnt mean its not happening. Also I dont think its murder if its done before a set time limit, not that many who approves of abortion really does, otherwise they wouldnt call it abortion.
Are you a feminist? Or part of Atheism + or something? Because the arguments you've used with no real explanation to how white males are so oppressive and everyone else is being dominated is the sort of stuff I see from them on a regular basis.
Guess what, almost every example you've given doesn't necessarily mean that a white male is the one at fault. Do you know women are most likely to hold other women back at the work place? Do you know they are more likely to give praise to men than other women?
To be honest I don't really see a problem with recruiters asking women if they plan on having a baby or not, especially if you're a small business... even though it's not allowed and is illegal in most countries. Seriously can you not see the big fucking reason why an employer would want to know something like that? They can't be fired, they have to be replaced, they can't do their regular jobs, they can have up to 36 weeks of 90% of their wage or £130 a week here in England.
This kind of stuff legitimately pisses me off. People point out differences and think they should be fixed without accounting for other variables and factors. They just see a hole and think it should be plugged up no matter the consequences.
|
I'm all for abortion options for rape victims (and I'm pro-choice in general), but why would a rape victim wait until the third trimester to destroy the fetus? Surely more people would have more problems with an abortion carried out that late, and it's not like a rape victim won't be just as scarred during the first few months. I feel like it's harder to justify abortion as the months go on, unless something new or unforeseen occurs that changes your ability to have the child.
For example, I could see a pregnant woman changing her mind if complications in the pregnancy arise (as those may emerge later without earlier notice). If the woman's life is in danger at any time, I absolutely think it's reasonable to save her life over that of a fetus (and then she'd be able to try again at a later time if she wants). But I feel that this is in contrast to a rape victim who wishes to abort due to being raped... I don't see why someone wouldn't (nearly) immediately abort, as opposed to wait seven or so months. Possibly her views on the rape changed or something?
But this is merely professing my puzzlement. I don't know why a rape victim would want to keep being pregnant until the third trimester, hold on to the fetus for months, and then later get rid of the fetus for no other reason. I'd like to think that if I were a pregnant female via rape, I'd know quite soon that I didn't want to have the baby. But I'm not, and I certainly wouldn't try pushing my inexperienced opinions on anyone else, let alone try making laws or policy about it.
|
On June 16 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm all for abortion options for rape victims (and I'm pro-choice in general), but why would a rape victim wait until the third trimester to destroy the fetus? Surely more people would have more problems with an abortion carried out that late, and it's not like a rape victim won't be just as scarred during the first few months. I feel like it's harder to justify abortion as the months go on, unless something new or unforeseen occurs that changes your ability to have the child.
Are you asking why the victim of an extremely traumatic event would behave irrationally? :o
|
On June 16 2013 03:02 Meow-Meow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:03 MoonfireSpam wrote:On June 16 2013 02:00 cloneThorN wrote:On June 16 2013 01:56 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
First and foremost, abortion is a violation of life. HOWEVER, I think these are 2 valid points where abortion MAY BE allowed. Why do you think it's a violation of life? And why do you think you have the right to decide over other humans, if they should have abortions or not? Life is not fair, and definately not easy. It's a cruel world, and most of the time, things don't go as you want them to do.. Don't question the Son of God. Don't question a giant bad-ass statue you mean?
Ding ding ding!
|
On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right...
|
On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right...
His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now.
|
I personally am for all abortions in the first and second trimesters because fetuses are worthless: they can be "created" at will and are as useful as any other hunk of biological stuff.
Third trimester fetuses are a grey area to me, but in the case of rape and malformations (downs syndrome, etc.), I think the mother should be able to choose what she does with it. Same thing when the life of the mother is in danger, she should get to choose. In other cases, I'm not sure.
|
On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now.
Well, I think that in itself is bullshit, but the main point: basic cognitive functions =/= abstract thought. Personality and conscience =/= abstract thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
