|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 01, 2010 03:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Right. In a friendly discussion. Well, my initial remark was meant funny; sorry, I thought that was obvious. I wanted to express my astonishment about you trying to explain principles, workings and so on; I thought, you'd seen how futile that is and acted accordingly quite some time before me.
I know, I understood the humor in it. Sometimes I forget the futility of trying to connect with certain people.
Quote:
To the point:
Actually JJ I'm not quite following you on this one. You're suggesting there's a difference between the specific and general case, particularly as it pertains to the validity of a man's opinion on the matter? I'm not sure I quite see the distinction you are drawing yet.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 05:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Deliberate killing of a known innocent human life is immoral and always will be. Morality is absolute.
No, it's not. I know, because my morality is pretty high and it doesn't say anything bad about allowing some individuals do abortion.
Quote:
Your claim was apparently that no one had a right to enforce their morals on another. Yet now you seem to be saying the opposite, that a majority can enforce the morals of not raping or stealing on others.
Which is it? Does society have a right to force a certain standard of moral behavior or not? Your statements so far have been rather inconsistent.
The scale is different. The % of those who disagree is significantly less in case of theft and rape. They also tend to reject many moral rules at once, thus making it impossible to get into agreement with them on a common moral.
Another reason why theft and rape must be illegal is that a criminal is likely to continue such actions in future. Doing another abortion is unlikely for a mother that had one.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 06:18 AM |
|
|
Of course morality is objective. Otherwise, you'd be letting murderers get away by claiming they follow a different morality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 06:26 AM |
|
|
Of course it's objective. There's still one thing that differs with religious people. THEY have an absolute morale. The bible is their moral.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 08:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
To the point:
Actually JJ I'm not quite following you on this one. You're suggesting there's a difference between the specific and general case, particularly as it pertains to the validity of a man's opinion on the matter? I'm not sure I quite see the distinction you are drawing yet.
It's probably too simple a point.
There is the general legislation, for one. The general legislation paints the broad picture. The general legislation can, for example, declare abortion in general to be a punishable offence with only a couple of exceptions allowed, like, mother's health is threatened. Or they can declare that abortion in general is no offence if certain prerequsites are met: within the first three months and there was a review at the local mother's welfare centre or whiever it is called, or there can be every other GENERAL regulation via law. This general regulation will EITHER tend to make abortion legal for the big majority OR illegal.
For THIS kind of general legislation I would like to hear valid reason why MEN in general should have a say here. It's a situation they can NEVER EVER come into, by nature and by default, and I don't think that people should male laws about things they CANNOT ever experience, when it's not a minority we are talking about, but 50%V of the population.
However, this is only about the general course the law takes, not about the special case. The special case is always the single, personal case, and here of coure the mother is what counts. If there is a case where a mother wants an abortion, but the father would not, I probably wouldn't be against a way for the father to try and get the help of an agency of the state in making the mother reconsider.
In practise, if the mother leans to an abortion the only possible lawyer the fetus may get is either the father OR the husband of the woman in question who are not necessarily the same person, and they may well be the only ones who can make mother reconsider.
For example, mother may have an affair and get pregnant; she panics because in her mind this will ruin her whole life, and in her panic she may want an abortion. At this point, both lover and husband may have something to say about it, and things may turn out well for 4, where things may go completely wrong for 3.
In short: for the GENERAL RIGHT of a woman to have an abortion, to decide that in my opinion only women should be eligible to.
For a specific case, however, the specific father is involved in a way that should give him a chance to make his voice heard and influence the decision of the mother whether to make use of her right or not.
@Mvass
Quote:
Of course morality is objective. Otherwise, you'd be letting murderers get away by claiming they follow a different morality.
What you mean is, that everyone is equal before the law, which has nothing to do with objective morality. In fact even tht is not true - if someone is proven to be insane that person WILL get away with murder and be treated instead.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 08:41 AM |
|
|
No, what I mean is that there is an objective morality. People being equal before the law is part of it, of course, but not the whole thing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 09:02 AM |
|
|
I mean, is that your argument with the law isn't valid, and I think, even you have agreed.
Morality has its own thread, though.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 09:06 AM |
|
|
Just a few quickie points.
@Shares (and many others, and in many threads)
Why is it that so many people assume that just because someone believes in absolute morality then it's because of religion? A person can believe an embryo/fetus is a human life at conception without being religious. And they can believe in any other morality without being religious. Just because some particular view on morality is commonly associated with a religion doesn't mean the person's belief is BECAUSE of that religion.
@JJ
I tried to trace back your debate to put it in better context, without find the beginning with a quick search. Anyway, if I understand what you are saying about men:
"For THIS kind of general legislation I would like to hear valid reason why MEN in general should have a say here."
You are referring to the legislation as in the government that makes the laws? If so then in a representative government, the woman DOES have a say, even if it's by proxy. When the legislation meets on an issue like this, are they supposed to tell all the men to leave or abstain from voting? Those men are there to represent their district, both the men and women of their district. That's what their job is and they were elected to that position by men and women both.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 09:36 AM |
|
|
Bin, that's not the point because it's only a formality. Suppose a representative TRULY would represent the majority of their district (being a messenger only), the point was that all men of the district would have to abstain from voting because they have no business to. The representative - as a messenger - could of course be a man.
Try and find an analogy where 50% of the population is barred from ever coming into the situation. By default. Not by any lucky strike, fate, happenstance, nothing. It's just completely outside of 50% of the pop's experience. I suppose, you'll have extreme difficulties to find such an analogy.
So give me a good reason why people who CANNOT EVER, by no means, come into a certain situation should make laws about how to treat persons who ARE in that situation and behave in this or that way?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 10:20 AM |
|
|
I'm only going to answer this in part, because to answer it in full would be getting into the same arguments that both sides of the issue have already made over and over again. It's like the religion thread, it just goes in circles and gets nowhere.
But my point was that it's the legislature's JOB to make these decisions, and gender is irrelevant, it's only coincidental. True, in the case of abortion, a man can never be in that situation. But how much different is a 0% chance of being in a situation compared to a 1% chance or a 0.0001% chance of being in a situation?
It should never be expected that legislators can only vote on things they can personally experience. They are hired to make those decisions with whatever information they have available, regardless of the source.
I'm just curious. Should a woman who was sterile from birth also be excluded from making these decision? (ok, that's a bit of an unfair argument, but I really am curious....just because I'm curious )
Oh, for the record, on the legal side of this, I'm actually pretty neutral. There are rights and wrongs on both sides, and to be honest I'm not comfortable with either side in this.
On the morale side, I think I've already hinted at my views elsewhere in the thread. But as I said, this is a never-ending debate that gets nowhere.
It's a debate I've been listening to for 40+ years since the US legalized abortion at the national level. Prior to that it was up to the states to decide. I didn't know the answer then, and I still don't. Both sides are bad. When a woman is pregnant and doesn't want the baby, it is bad, and there is no way to make it not bad. It's a VERY sad situation with no good solution.
I can say that I discussed and considered aborting my own son. That takes on a whole new meaning when he's a grown man who recently turned 29. If he knew, I wonder what he would think of that. I wonder what his wife and children would think of it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 12:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But my point was that it's the legislature's JOB to make these decisions, and gender is irrelevant, it's only coincidental. True, in the case of abortion, a man can never be in that situation. But how much different is a 0% chance of being in a situation compared to a 1% chance or a 0.0001% chance of being in a situation?
It should never be expected that legislators can only vote on things they can personally experience. They are hired to make those decisions with whatever information they have available, regardless of the source.
I think, that "point" dissolves because it paints a wrong picture:
Name ONE thing legislators decide about they are impossible to experience.
However, my actual point is a slightly different one, even though I admit it hasn't come out clearly, reading this now
: Legislation isn't made for everything. Some things are not ruled by law or are considered personal, or too personal for the whole of society to generally and summarily decide.
The actual question I ask is what makes abortion fall under the GENERAL LAW or: why is the WHOLE BODY of society qualified to generally and summarily decide whether women in general are allowed an abortion or not?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 01:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Shares (and many others, and in many threads)
Why is it that so many people assume that just because someone believes in absolute morality then it's because of religion? A person can believe an embryo/fetus is a human life at conception without being religious. And they can believe in any other morality without being religious. Just because some particular view on morality is commonly associated with a religion doesn't mean the person's belief is BECAUSE of that religion.
Why is it that so many people assume that implication and equivalens are the same? I've said it before and now I say it again:
Just because I said that religious people have absolute morals does not mean that people with absolute moral are religious. It's a one way equal.
Sorry for the implication though.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 03:21 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:27, 01 Apr 2010.
|
@mvass
Quote:
Of course morality is objective. Otherwise, you'd be letting murderers get away by claiming they follow a different morality.
That only means the application of law is objective, not that morality is.
@JJ
Quote:
For THIS kind of general legislation I would like to hear valid reason why MEN in general should have a say here.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the assertion that abortion has no direct relationship to the male. Certainly, if we're talking physical impact, the woman bears the great majority (if not the entirety) of the burden - ignoring the fetus, of course. However, 50% of the fetus does "belong" to the male
In addition, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with laws that apply to, or are determined by, a specific sub-population. To make such a law establishes a precedent that I feel is very dangerous.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 07:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@mvass
Quote:
Of course morality is objective. Otherwise, you'd be letting murderers get away by claiming they follow a different morality.
That only means the application of law is objective, not that morality is.
@JJ
Quote:
For THIS kind of general legislation I would like to hear valid reason why MEN in general should have a say here.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the assertion that abortion has no direct relationship to the male. Certainly, if we're talking physical impact, the woman bears the great majority (if not the entirety) of the burden - ignoring the fetus, of course. However, 50% of the fetus does "belong" to the male
In addition, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with laws that apply to, or are determined by, a specific sub-population. To make such a law establishes a precedent that I feel is very dangerous.
I'd support the 50% male only in cases of mutual agreement about all involved "ifs". If a woman has sex and gets INVOLUNTARILY and UNWANTEDLY pregnant, the man "owns" nothing.
The abortion laws, mind you, APPLY only to women - it's a law SPECIFICALLY for women. A law SPECIFICALLY for women shouldn't ne made by men. If you are uncomfortable with that, ask yourself why abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is even ruled by general law.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 07:11 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
I'd support the 50% male only in cases of mutual agreement about all involved "ifs". If a woman has sex and gets INVOLUNTARILY and UNWANTEDLY pregnant, the man "owns" nothing.
Involuntarily... do you mean involuntarily pregnant (as in, the condom ripped) or do you mean involuntarily had sex (as in, rape)?
Part of me wants to argue that involuntarily or not, half of the fetus's genetic material came from the male and that entitles him some rights to the future of said material. On the other hand, I do agree that if you break the law (i.e., are a rapist), you forfeit a lot (though not all) of your rights. On the other, other hand, I don't really want to get bogged down in a discussion of ownership as it pertains to the fetus and its genetic material. On the other, other other hand, this all only applies to involuntary sex. If the woman gets pregnant involuntarily but the sex part was voluntary, all bets are off as far as "voluntariness" is concerned.
Quote:
The abortion laws, mind you, APPLY only to women - it's a law SPECIFICALLY for women. A law SPECIFICALLY for women shouldn't ne made by men. If you are uncomfortable with that, ask yourself why abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is even ruled by general law.
Physically, maybe. Socioeconomically? I'm not sure I agree. Having (or not having) an abortion affects as man to some nonnegligable degree. At the very least, legal terminology that promotes male dissociation from responsibility can only be a bad thing. Society should be encouraging men to get involved in the consequences of sex, not giving men loophopes to escape through.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 08:01 PM |
|
|
JJ:Quote:
do you mean involuntarily pregnant (as in, the condom ripped) or do you mean involuntarily had sex (as in, rape)?
I mean involuntarily pregnant.
[quote} On the other, other other hand, this all only applies to involuntary sex. If the woman gets pregnant involuntarily but the sex part was voluntary, all bets are off as far as "voluntariness" is concerned.
Not so. As a man, if you want to have a child, you have enough ways to try and go for one. If you want a child as a man and have sex with a woman who does NOT want a child, you basically agree to have sex only. You are not entitled to anything.
If you just are overwhelmed and suddenly find the idea cool - if the woman doesn't want you still are not entitled to anything. See it from the perspective of the woman.
Quote:
Having (or not having) an abortion affects as man to some nonnegligable degree. At the very least, legal terminology that promotes male dissociation from responsibility can only be a bad thing. Society should be encouraging men to get involved in the consequences of sex, not giving men loophopes to escape through.
You are circumventing the point. Tne question is still what gives SOCIETY the right to rule about something so personal like a pregnancy within the first dozen week is. The SECOND question is, what would give MEN the right to have a say in a general regulation if the women would agree that a general regulation might be good?
Can you give a good reason for it?
If you want to have real equality - because this is simplky a question of equality - there is no other option except legalizing abortion. Without legalization of abortion there is no real equality.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 08:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Whilst I feel sorry for you're mother, I have to ask you this.
does you're mother breath or digest?
if she does, then she has the same right to life as a new born infant, a young child, a teenager, an adult or anyone else in the world.
if she does not and does it through another person, then she does not.
So you are saying people on life support machines have no right to life?
Again your argument has been if a human is dependent on another human it is ok to kil the dependant human. Thre are lots of humans who are totally dependant on others.
Quote:
The Anti-christ is going to be born, and you have the chance to abort the baby. do you do it, and kill a human child? or save the child, and damn us all?
if you feel this question is too ridiculous, then fine.
Sorry, I would have no idea who the anti-Christ is and would not have the right to murder him.
Quote:
Just remember, Elodin. If you truly live in a free country, then you should have free reign over you're body. hey, in britain, it's so. Are you saying that you want you're own country to be less free than a little socialist island?
So, since I have free reign over my body I have the right to use my hands to choke the life out of another human, eh?
That is what you are saying when you say it is ok for the mother to murder the unborn child.
Quote:
Since the word "idiotic" is used in the quote, well. I've never seen a more idiotic point than that which says that it is idiotic to ask to bring up a point for something.
You are lying if you claim I said it is idiotic to ask for a reason for something. It is truly unfortunate that anti-Christians seem to feel the need to lie about others in debates and seem to have no qualms about doing so.
Here is exactly what I said:
Quote:
I think it is quite idiotic to say that because a woman bears the baby she has a right to kill the baby and no one else should have a say.
So it looks like you are either a liar or you have a reading comprehension problem.
Again, why should only women get a say on if a baby can be murdered? The baby is as much the father's as the mother's. Also, it is idiotic to say that celebate people or people incapable of having a child should not also be able to object to babies being murdered.
I have seen not one valid reason why it is ok to kill a baby unless the life of the mother is in danger. I have seen not one valid reason why only women should determine if it is ok to murder babies or not.
Quote:
Quote:
a valid argument why a mother has a right to kill her baby in her womb
is, here an argument:
Because short of cuffing her hands and feet, chaining her to something and force-feed her, there is no way to force her to keep the fetus alive if she doesn't want to (or, if you like that better, to stop her letting the fetus die).
Sorry, your argument is saying that since no one can be prevented from sommitting murder if they are determined to that murder should be legal. There is nothing that would prevent someone who wanted to kill you from walking up to your door, knocking, and shooting you when you opened the door. Your logic say it should not be illegal for him to do so because he can't be prevented from doing so.
Oh, you also seem to be ignorant of he fact that abortion does affect fathers also. Fathers who don't want their baby murdered are victims also. Many fathers suffer profoundly when then baby is murdered.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/postabortion/postabortiontestimonymen.htm
Quote:
Abortion has many victims, and one of them is the father of the child.
The laws of the United States do not acknowledge the right a father to stop the abortion of his own child, but rather place that act solely within the decision of the mother.
This raises a multitude of problems.
On the one hand, the father who wants to defend the life of his child is often accused of meddling in something that is not his business.
On the other hand, the father who wants to leave the (mistaken) decision of abortion in the hands of the mother alone is often accused of being uncaring and distant. This, in turn, can create feelings of isolation in the mother, which in turn makes it easier for her to resort to abortion.
Furthermore, the law is a powerful teacher. It says the father has no rights in the abortion decision. But the other side of the coin of "rights" is "responsibilities." The current state of the law regarding fathers and abortion can easily foster a sense of irresponsibility in young men.
Post-abortion counseling services are seeing an increasing number of men come forward, grieving their aborted children. Many of the same dynamics of post-abortion distress that we see in women are are also present in men.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course morality is objective. Otherwise, you'd be letting murderers get away by claiming they follow a different morality.
What you mean is, that everyone is equal before the law, which has nothing to do with objective morality. In fact even tht is not true - if someone is proven to be insane that person WILL get away with murder and be treated instead
.
The law has not the slightests thing to do with morality. Otherwise you are claiming that it was moral for Hitler to murder the 6 millino Jews and 7 millino Christians.
Objective morality exists independant of any law of man. It will alway be wrong to rape and murder no matter what law any Congressional body or national leader may pass.
Quote:
Why is it that so many people assume that just because someone believes in absolute morality then it's because of religion? A person can believe an embryo/fetus is a human life at conception without being religious. And they can believe in any other morality without being religious. Just because some particular view on morality is commonly associated with a religion doesn't mean the person's belief is BECAUSE of that religion.
Very true. One of the biggest anti-theits in today's "new atheism" is pro-life. Hitchens.
Quote:
Not so. As a man, if you want to have a child, you have enough ways to try and go for one. If you want a child as a man and have sex with a woman who does NOT want a child, you basically agree to have sex only. You are not entitled to anything.
If you just are overwhelmed and suddenly find the idea cool - if the woman doesn't want you still are not entitled to anything. See it from the perspective of the woman.
It is strange to say a man should have no rights and only the woman has rights in sexual/parental matters.
According to you the man only has the right to engage in sex (with the woman's permission) but no right to the child if a child results. And the child has no right to live. That is bizzare.
Let me also ask you this. Does a woman have a right to deman child support if she decides not to murder the baby?
Quote:
Tne question is still what gives SOCIETY the right to rule about something so personal like a pregnancy within the first dozen week is.
Because it is immoral to kill a known innocent human life that is not threatening the life of another. The baby has a right to life. The mother does not have a right to kill the baby just because she is a selfish ***** who does not want her lifestylle to be altered for a relatively few months.
Quote:
The SECOND question is, what would give MEN the right to have a say in a general regulation if the women would agree that a general regulation might be good?
Men have a right to object to the murder of innocent human life.
Again, you have provided not one rational reason why women should be able to murder the baby and men should have no say so.
Your loony arguments are just like saying only children should make laws regarding children. Only children should have a right to say if children are going to be required to go to school for instance.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 10:25 PM |
|
|
Let me just say that the last post I read here has earned a place in Corribus's thread of examples of people who are too dumb to be allowed spoiling the gene-pool or something like that.
However, the whole discussion is an example of male chauvisnism:
I mean, just ask yourself this: usually, who is the caring for children, men or women?
If you read about abuse, domestic violence and so on, what are the chances that they talk about a MAN?
If relationships or marriages breaks, how often is it because the woman feels the man doesn't care for the children? How often is it the lother way round?
If there is an unwanted child born, who will end up more often with the child, and who will just pay or even piss off, never to be seen?
What do you think is more probable, that a raped woman will keep the unwanted child resultig from the rape or the husband of a raped woman asking his wife NOT to have an abortion, and keep the child, and fathers it?
A couple more of these questions later, what would you say, who is generally more concerned about children:
MEN or
WOMEN?
So what makes men think, they can tell women how they should act against or for the life that is growing in teir bellies? Isn't that ridiculous?
Wouldn't you say that if anyone would make laws PRO and IN FAVOR of children it would be women? Wouldn't you even TRUST that WOMEN would make laws about children with more of an eye on the children than men?
Hasn't history taught us that men suck in morals?
And men want to tell women about how to deal with the stuff growing in their bellies?
I think, that is preposterous.
And I don't have anything more to say to that issue.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 10:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Whilst I feel sorry for you're mother, I have to ask you this.
does you're mother breath or digest?
if she does, then she has the same right to life as a new born infant, a young child, a teenager, an adult or anyone else in the world.
if she does not and does it through another person, then she does not.
So you are saying people on life support machines have no right to life?
Stop twisting the argument.
This is relating to you're mother, an alzhiemers victim. If she is able to breath on her own, not through another human being, then she has the right to life. even if she does it through a machine, she still has the right to life. If it's done through another human, then she doesn't.
Hypothetically. I wish you're mother a pleasant life and hope that she's happy for the remainder of it.
Quote:
Again your argument has been if a human is dependent on another human it is ok to kil the dependant human. Thre are lots of humans who are totally dependant on others.
Not really...
If they were totally dependent on another, they would not be able to breath or digest without another human doing it for them...
name one, apart from a baby within the womb, person who is in that situation.
Quote:
Quote:
The Anti-christ is going to be born, and you have the chance to abort the baby. do you do it, and kill a human child? or save the child, and damn us all?
if you feel this question is too ridiculous, then fine.
Sorry, I would have no idea who the anti-Christ is and would not have the right to murder him.
Ok, The Anti-christ is satan's attempt to pull a jesus on us. the son of the devil, who is also his father, who is born of a virgin mother and will bring about the apocolypse, also known as the son of david, as mighty as a lion and as weak as a lamb.
And You have the chance to stop that from happening and save millions from a terrible fate! what will you do?!
Quote:
Quote:
Just remember, Elodin. If you truly live in a free country, then you should have free reign over you're body. hey, in britain, it's so. Are you saying that you want you're own country to be less free than a little socialist island?
So, since I have free reign over my body I have the right to use my hands to choke the life out of another human, eh?
Is that person inside you're body?
probably not... unless you either dig vore, or ram them sufficently up... best not to think about it.
If it's in you're body, then you have every right to get rid of it.
Quote:
That is what you are saying when you say it is ok for the mother to murder the unborn child.
no.
I am saying that the mother has the choice to keep the baby or not.
You forget, Elodin, that in the work place, women still suffer from a glass ceiling issue. Women might not get promoted due to the fact that they might get pregnant and get maternity leave. If a woman is in a high-flying career, she has to avoid getting knocked up as much as possible.
you say later in the post that the woman who does that is a selfish *****. SO C**ting well, B*****ding What?! if she want's to pursue a career, then she can, if she want's to have a child, then she can. This is the crux of the argument for pro-CHOICE! Do you know how much time a woman has to take out of a career in order to care for a child. once a child comes along, that's game over for a woman's career. there are rare cases where a woman gets back to the position she was, especially if she is a board member on a company, because she has to take care of her kids. there is only so far that play group, nannies and neighbours can go, you know.
the quote from "Priestforlife" gives alot away. Just by the websites title, I know that it's about "all life is sacred." yes, all life is sacred, but only if the parents treasure it. Cases have been reported of how kids have often been abbadoned by their parents because their parents don't want them any more. To me, that is a sadder case, you know that you're parents are supposed to love you... but they don't and wish you weren't there.
Pro-choice is just that, Choice. Parents, when they are ready, can have children, rather than having a child neither parent wants, and end up hating for ruining both parent's lives. That leads to broken careers, broken dreams and broken children.
Is that what you want?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 01, 2010 11:57 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:58, 01 Apr 2010.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Not so. As a man, if you want to have a child, you have enough ways to try and go for one. If you want a child as a man and have sex with a woman who does NOT want a child, you basically agree to have sex only.
I fundamentally disagree. Presuming that both parties consent to sex, both parties (unless they are stupid) implicitly acknowledge that there's a chance that the woman might get pregnant. You can't agree to an action but not agree to the consequences of the action. To me that sounds a bit like if someone invites you go rob a bank with him and some of his friends, and when the police track the lot of you down, you refuse to go with them on the grounds that you never agreed to be arrested for a crime.
I mean: I never intend to rob a bank. Should I have no say in the laws regarding bank robberies? That seems to be what you're saying. That I, as a man, will never become pregnant. And therefore I should have no say in laws that govern prenancy.
And beside which, I think the earlier challenge to your position is salient: the capacity to become pregnant or have an abortion is not dependent only on sex. There are plenty of women who cannot have children. Are they forbidden from taking part in the debate as well?
Quote:
See it from the perspective of the woman.
I do see it from the perspective of the woman. I see it as: "Hey I chose to have sex with this man. Half of his genetic material is growing inside me. This isn't what I wanted, but it happened. We have to come to a decision together."
Quote:
You are circumventing the point. Tne question is still what gives SOCIETY the right to rule about something so personal like a pregnancy within the first dozen week is. The SECOND question is, what would give MEN the right to have a say in a general regulation if the women would agree that a general regulation might be good?
Can you give a good reason for it?
First question: I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm not sure anything gives society that right. But as to the second question: if society does have the right, men are a good portion of society, and they have the right to take part in any discussion that affects the laws of society. For that matter, they have the right to determine if society has the right to a say in the first place. IMO.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
