|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 02, 2010 10:06 AM |
|
|
@ Corribus
I feel, that I have said everything in my last post, but for the record let me add that for me it wouldn't matter whether a woman can have children or not. If a woman cannot have children she was robbed of something she should have been able to, so in my book she qualifies. Maybe that makes my point clearer.
My point is, that MEN made little fetusses an issue of general laws and society as a whole (in which women had no say anyway) - clearly, clearly, oh so clearly it has been another thing that concerns first and foremost WOMEN that has been taken away from them, adding another brick to the wall of male domination of females. Now:
Quote:
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.
(the analogy sucks, so I leave it out; it's not necessary to understand the point you try to make). Yeah, so what? Even IF they do - the only consequence is - the woman might get pregnant. Why would that give any rights to the man? I fail to see that. It's not self-explanatory, and I don't see any point made that would explain it.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 04:25 PM |
|
|
OK JJ, I think we might just have to part ways on this one. After all, my immediate response to this:
Quote:
Even IF they do - the only consequence is - the woman might get pregnant. Why would that give any rights to the man?
Is: Why would it NOT give any rights to the man? Sometimes it's hard to explain something that seems self-evident. I suppose that's why we're both having trouble getting our points across. 
____________
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 02, 2010 06:29 PM |
|
|
"Self-evident" is a slippery-slope. It reeks of "faith", "believe", and irrationality.
Moreover, when it comes to men saying that something is self-evident in opposition to women it tastes of male chauvinism.
So if you cannot name any viable reasons for your claim, you maybe should reconsider your position (for yourself, not for the discussion); it's "suspicious".
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 08:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So if you cannot name any viable reasons for your claim, you maybe should reconsider your position (for yourself, not for the discussion); it's "suspicious".
Well, seeing as your best argument seems to be "Why SHOULD it give any rights to the man?", which is to say, your position is self-evident to you, you are coming off sounding a little bit like a hypocrite now. 
____________
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 02, 2010 08:34 PM |
|
|
Nonono.
The situation is this:
The WOMAN is pregnant. Woman says: "I abort." She has the power to do so, so that is one thing. Now you, the man, says: "Wait a sec! I sired it! Do I not have a say in here?"
Answer: "I gave the egg, you the sperm. That makes it equal. Now if you can take the fetus 18 weeks you have the same say as me. If you can take it the last 6 months you can decide. Your turn."
YOU are the one claiming, there IS a right for the man, although he has NO "power" or ability whatsoever to help in any decisive way - you are not doing anything out of the ordinary while a woman is pregnant, are you?
Which means, it's YOUR turn to give reasons for your claim.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 08:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The WOMAN is pregnant. Woman says: "I abort." She has the power to do so, so that is one thing. Now you, the man, says: "Wait a sec! I sired it! Do I not have a say in here?"
Answer: "I gave the egg, you the sperm. That makes it equal. Now if you can take the fetus 18 weeks you have the same say as me. If you can take it the last 6 months you can decide. Your turn."
Well I understand what you're saying, JJ, but I don't see it that way. Biology is biology and in any case, nine months is a very short time in comparison to the lifetime of a human being; does a woman have the right to subject the man to X years of (psychological) suffering to save herself 9 months of physical suffering? Power means nothing, by the way. I have the power to put a bullet through your head, but that doesn't give me the legal right to do so. For another thing, if the couple is married, there's the matter of split ownership of all assets. And for another, what you're advocating is that the male has no rights to his genetic material after it has left his body. Is that true?
Quote:
you are not doing anything out of the ordinary while a woman is pregnant, are you?
You mean, aside from having to listen to a lot of moaning about pickles and peanut butter? 
____________
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 02, 2010 09:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
does a woman have the right to subject the man to X years of (psychological) suffering to save herself 9 months of physical suffering?
Sure. Because suffering is a SUBJECTIVE thing. For example: If you KIDNAP a woman 9 months, because you just HAVE to make a sculpture or a painting of her, you could ask the same question.
Quote:
Power means nothing, by the way. I have the power to put a bullet through your head, but that doesn't give me the legal right to do so.
But in this case power equals right, because abortion is legal, If abortion was NOT legal, the problem is, you couldn't even say that you'll abort, because that would be the same as saying you want to rob a bank (it would give the man a LEGAL right and we don't need to discuss). However in that case - a woman doesn't need to tell. Which is the power of factuality.
Quote:
For another thing, if the couple is married, there's the matter of split ownership of all assets. And for another, what you're advocating is that the male has no rights to his genetic material after it has left his body. Is that true?
Oh, he has every right. He can claim it back.
Quote:
Quote:
you are not doing anything out of the ordinary while a woman is pregnant, are you?
You mean, aside from having to listen to a lot of moaning about pickles and peanut butter?
Not to mention going on errants for strange things all the time, having to listen to lectures about ruination of shape and that you just cant do what you do right now because it's so unfair. I agree, you have a point there.
EDIT: We talk about casual sex here, so marriage is NOT included.
If married, you either talked about kids or not. If you did talk about, you either have a claim (you agreed upon children, for example, and you have none as yet) or you agreed to have none (no claim).
If you didn't talk about it, you obviously don't care (no claim), except that you started to care now the fact is factual and discovered your heart for little babies.
In that case you have every right and claim to reconsider your marriage and start a discussion. But that's it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 09:58 PM |
|
|
Here's another way of looking at it. So far, we've been thinking about what it'd be like if the woman wants to abort and the man doesn't. But the opposite situation might happen as well - suppose if the child was born, the man would have to pay child support. So, what then?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 10:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here's another way of looking at it. So far, we've been thinking about what it'd be like if the woman wants to abort and the man doesn't. But the opposite situation might happen as well - suppose if the child was born, the man would have to pay child support. So, what then?
You mean, the law is, man has to pay child support, when a child is born, a woman becomes pregnant and wants the child, and the man wants an abortion?
Sorry to say so, but it's STILL the mother's decision, and if she wants the child - bad luck.
Don't you see that this seeming unfairness/inequality is the only way to get real equality? Because it allows a woman to be as sexually aggressive as a man and it gives men reason to think about shagging around which makes sense. It teaches MEN to take care, which is what is needed, and badly.
Or do you want to do it the muslim way and keep women under arrest, so that nothing can happen to them before maereriage?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 11:06 PM |
|
|
Personally, I'd prefer if neither men nor women would be sexually aggressive.
But yeah, it's unfair.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 11:24 PM |
|
|
Unfair? Give us an option then!
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2010 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Personally, I'd prefer if neither men nor women would be sexually aggressive.
In that case you wouldn't exist. We all wouldn't.
Quote:
But yeah, it's unfair.
Why?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 03, 2010 12:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
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:
It is dumb to say that a man objectnig to a baby being murdered is male chauvinism. One has to wonder about whether a person advancing such an argument hs a genetic defect that prevents him from reasoning properly.
Quote:
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?
In my opinion every sane and moral person should object to a known innocent human life being snuffed out JJ. I don't see any reason to say that a woman should be able to kill the baby unless her life is in danger.
Quote:
Hasn't history taught us that men suck in morals?
Wow, talk about a sexist statement!
Quote:
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.
I already did. She could breath of course, but she would have no food to eat without other buying and preparing the food and fixing her plate. My mother left to her own devices would starve to death or wander off somewhere and die from exposure. She can't go from the stove to the kitchen table much less to the grocer and back.
Judging a person to have no right to live becuse they are dependent on other shows a lack of value for human life.
Quote:
If it's in you're body, then you have every right to get rid of it.
Why? Why doe a mother have the right to kill the baby that is in the womb, its natural "home?" At that stage in the human life cycle the baby is where he is supposed to be.
Quote:
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.
Pro-baby-murder is not an ethical choice. That leads to murdered babies, which kind of ruins their life, don't you think. 
Quote:
Moreover, when it comes to men saying that something is self-evident in opposition to women it tastes of male chauvinism.
You seem to be ignorant of hte fact that many women are pro-life. Lol!!!! You are claiming they are chauvinists too?!?!?!?
Exactly why is is chauvinistic to object to babies being murdered.
Quote:
Don't you see that this seeming unfairness/inequality is the only way to get real equality?
No. I don't see how giving one human more rights than another human makes both equal.
And you are actually ignoring the rights of the baby. Why does not the baby have a right to live?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2010 12:52 AM |
|
|
JJ:
There's a difference between "having sex" and "being sexually aggressive". One can do the first without being the second.
And it's unfair because the woman can get rid of having to take care of the baby but the man can't. (This applies to adoption as well.) As long as the woman has the child, the man has to pay. The woman can avoid having to take care of the child, either by getting rid of it in the womb by aborting it, or by giving it up for adoption. The man, however, (assuming the parents are not together any more) will not have any say in this and will just have to fork the money over.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2010 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
There's a difference between "having sex" and "being sexually aggressive". One can do the first without being the second.
And it's unfair because the woman can get rid of having to take care of the baby but the man can't. (This applies to adoption as well.) As long as the woman has the child, the man has to pay. The woman can avoid having to take care of the child, either by getting rid of it in the womb by aborting it, or by giving it up for adoption. The man, however, (assuming the parents are not together any more) will not have any say in this and will just have to fork the money over.
Yeah, so what? Men are not being forced to have sex, aren't they? Protected, unprotected, with or without vasectomy, after having saved a ton of sperm frozen for eventual later use. So what's your problem?
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 03, 2010 05:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If it's in you're body, then you have every right to get rid of it.
Why? Why doe a mother have the right to kill the baby that is in the womb, its natural "home?" At that stage in the human life cycle the baby is where he is supposed to be.
It's right because it's the woman's body.
It's really is as simple as that.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Pro-baby-murder is not an ethical choice. That leads to murdered babies, which kind of ruins their life, don't you think.
sorry, pro-baby-murder is not on the table. whatever sick fantasy you have can go somewhere else, please.
we are talking about pro-choice. thankyou for you're time.
are you living in the age of the coram murders, Elodin?
1764, the right honourable Arthur Coram created the first adoption agency in england. It was mainly used to house unwanted snow infants from rich families who couldn't bare the shame. he had a number of workers who went around the country, collecting unwanted offspring and moving them to one of Coram's estates, usually run by priests, doctors and so on.
However, six years later, a number of child corpses were found buried in a wood near glouchester. one of them was wrapped in a shawl, which had the crest of a local aristocracy. The perpetrators were never caught, but it is commonly believed that they gained the donation of the parents, and then killed the children, burying them in the wood.
now, This is baby murder. this is callous, calculated baby murder. I object to that, and you do too.
Abortion is nothing like this. Abortion happens before the babies brain begins to develop. Abortion is performed by doctors and trained medical professionals, who make sure the mother is alive and well.
I would also like to say that criminalising something does not make it go away. in fact, it drives it underground, and makes it more dangerous. in 1965, there were about 40 cases of women dying due to illegal abortions in england. This was mainly young women who had done it, despite it's illegal status, so as to avoid the terrible social stigma that single and young mothers have.
And I have already mentioned, In depth, why I think that no child is better than an unwanted child.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2010 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, so what? Men are not being forced to have sex, aren't they?
Right, but neither are women. Yet women can get rid of the consequences of their actions but men can't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2010 09:21 PM |
|
|
|
Strictly spoken, not true: Women DECIDE whether men can ged rid of the conseqzuences or not. They do that because it's their body the consequences are in.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 04, 2010 08:19 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:21, 04 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why? Why doe a mother have the right to kill the baby that is in the womb, its natural "home?" At that stage in the human life cycle the baby is where he is supposed to be.
It's right because it's the woman's body.
Her body is her body, the the baby in her womb is not her body. The baby in her womb has different DNA from her and so can't be considered a part of her body.
Again, what gives her a right to kill the unique human life in her womb?
Quote:
Quote:
sorry, pro-baby-murder is not on the table. whatever sick fantasy you have can go somewhere else, please.
we are talking about pro-choice. thankyou for you're time.
"Pro-choice" means you are in favor of allowing babies to be murdered. Pro-baby-murder.
"Pro-life" means you are in favor of the baby living, not being murdered.
I just don't see the logic in saying that a woman should be allowed to murder the little human life that is in her womb, exactly where he is supposed to be in that stage of the human life cycle.
Quote:
I would also like to say that criminalising something does not make it go away.
So since laws against theft and rape can't stop people from stealing and raping you are opposed to laws against those actions? That hardly seems rational.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 07, 2010 11:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why? Why doe a mother have the right to kill the baby that is in the womb, its natural "home?" At that stage in the human life cycle the baby is where he is supposed to be.
It's right because it's the woman's body.
Her body is her body, the the baby in her womb is not her body. The baby in her womb has different DNA from her and so can't be considered a part of her body.
Again, what gives her a right to kill the unique human life in her womb?
oh dear, elodin. time to go back to primary biology again.
The womb is part of the womans body. if it was a seperate entity, it wouldn't need the blood vessals inside it and outside in order to survive.
so what if the DNA in the baby is different from hers. so is a bacteria. are you saying we don't have the right to get rid of bacterias in our body?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
sorry, pro-baby-murder is not on the table. whatever sick fantasy you have can go somewhere else, please.
we are talking about pro-choice. thankyou for you're time.
"Pro-choice" means you are in favor of allowing babies to be murdered. Pro-baby-murder.
no.
Pro-choice is not pro-baby-murder. when was the last time you heard of a pro-choice activist running into a nursery with a machette.
Pro-choice could be classed, with alot of pushing, as pro-fetus murder. I doubt any woman with two braincells would leave her abortion so late that it becomes a baby.
Quote:
"Pro-life" means you are in favor of the baby living, not being murdered.
No, pro-life means you are taking rights away from a womans body, so you are pro-female-subjecation.
Quote:
I just don't see the logic in saying that a woman should be allowed to murder the little human life that is in her womb, exactly where he is supposed to be in that stage of the human life cycle.
I can't see the logic of not allowing a woman a right to her body, exactly the same rights she has been given as a human bearing a double X chromozone.
some people just don't see eye to eye.
Quote:
Quote:
I would also like to say that criminalising something does not make it go away.
So since laws against theft and rape can't stop people from stealing and raping you are opposed to laws against those actions? That hardly seems rational.
STRAWMAN!
no, I am opposed to an anti-abortion law. a singular law, for the reasons that I have stated.
Elodin, it is bad practice as a debater to use Strawmen and interpreting something the other side didn't say.
When did I say that I was against the laws relating to rape and theft! Give me an example of when I said that!
you can't.
because I never said it.
You lose!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
