|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 13, 2015 09:32 AM |
|
|
You hardcore Christians simply have to learn that an embryo or fetus is not YET a human being. It is on the way to becoming one, and the older it becomes, the more human it becomes, but as an embryo it's not. Brain is starting to develop with 5 months, lungs even later. It's not yet a human, although it will become one given time.
So the correct question is - does an embryo upon conceiving have the right to develop to an AUTONOMOUS human being?
Now, the problem here - as with all rights - is this: can this right be granted/enforced and who does it? As a rule, it's society as a whole who does the granting/enforcing - but in this case, society is powerless, because there is no way to. The only way to do this is keeping an unwilling woman bound the whole time and force-feed her, and you'd have to do it on the mere suspicion she might not want it.
Which simply means, that this isn't a SOCIALLY relevant problem! It makes no sense for society to try and grant/enforce these kind of rights. Instead, this is obviously a personal thing.
Good/bad are also not applicable in this case. No woman will have an abortion lightly, and if no amount of societal support and promise to help can bring her to accept being pregnant, it just doesn't make sense to try to force her into becoming it or to tell her that she's bad or such crap. ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANS - you'd think you'd leave it to be a thing between the aborting women and god (and maybe the dead not-yet-humans, should they have a soul), but what do YOU know?
There is simply nothing you can do for the fetus - other than for the already-living, and frankly, WHAT Christians and their organisations do for the living and HOW they do it makes me think, that they should maybe start to worry a bit more about the born life and less about the unborn life.
Or is this an issue, BECAUSE YOU can actually do nothing for the fetus, but instead it's the mother who is responsible for all that has to be done?
The bottom line is, I don't even accept that males have a relevant voice here. Male opinion on abortion? IRRELEVANT!
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 09:54 AM |
|
|
|
I think the loving Christians should answer this question and answer it honestly - would you take care of a children abandoned or abused by its parents who didn't want it and ultimately left it to its misery? "Take care" = be a substitute parent. If you cute "believers" can't answer positively and be true first to yourself and then to everybody else, everything else you say is worthless. Spend some time thinking about this, would you kindly?
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 10:07 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Male opinion on abortion? IRRELEVANT!
wrong. it takes two to make a life. it should take two to take that life, as well. sexist jargon has no place in abortion. it has no place anywhere, other than in jokes. just like racism, or anything else that can be considered exclusionary.
|
|
Herry
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 10:11 AM |
|
Edited by Herry at 10:16, 13 Dec 2015.
|
JollyJoker said:
You hardcore Christians simply have to learn that an embryo or fetus is not YET a human being.
[...]
And you have to learn that, in the period of pregnancy, it's a living being. We humans take killing other living beings lightly, not like killing a human being. A fetus isn't a human being, but it IS a living being.
A fetus is capable of growth, metabolism, and whatnot. It's living. This is where you actually KILL something. Although I'm not trying to say that abortion is bad, not doing it is, enforcing stuff is or isn't or anything, I'm just saying what is true.
____________
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 10:15 AM |
|
|
fred79 said:
wrong. it takes two to make a life. it should take two to take that life, as well. sexist jargon has no place in abortion. it has no place anywhere, other than in jokes. just like racism, or anything else that can be considered exclusionary.
But only one sex do the work. Males and females are not equal in this and never will be.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
Herry
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 10:21 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
The bottom line is, I don't even accept that males have a relevant voice here. Male opinion on abortion? IRRELEVANT!
You are stating your opinion, not a fact. You are male. Therefore, by your own logic, whatever you're saying, it's not relevant. Go plough topics elsewhere. That's how we roll, bro.
____________
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 10:29 AM |
|
|
This thread has become so subjective, that... for once I agree with Zeno-dude, and say nothing on the subject I have nothing to say. Like Jose' Mourinho.
Good luck in bringing reason to a discussion with leftists, Herry. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 10:58 AM |
|
|
Herry said:
JollyJoker said:
The bottom line is, I don't even accept that males have a relevant voice here. Male opinion on abortion? IRRELEVANT!
You are stating your opinion, not a fact. You are male. Therefore, by your own logic, whatever you're saying, it's not relevant. Go plough topics elsewhere. That's how we roll, bro.
I'm not your bro, and you have to learn about logic. By my own logic my opinion ON ABORTION is irrelevant - as is yours, or El's or everyone else's who's male.
Also, that you need sperm to fertilize an egg has no meaning for the following 9 month, since the sperm is the only effort needed here.
In case you din't notice, if it was different and pregnancy §duties" were shared, the problem wouldn't even exist.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 11:13 AM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 11:16, 13 Dec 2015.
|
Zenofex said:
I think the loving Christians should answer this question and answer it honestly - would you take care of a children abandoned or abused by its parents who didn't want it and ultimately left it to its misery? "Take care" = be a substitute parent. If you cute "believers" can't answer positively and be true first to yourself and then to everybody else, everything else you say is worthless. Spend some time thinking about this, would you kindly?
I pondered on this a lot actually, personally I would take care of abandoned children, I'd feel a bit strange of that kid not being my biological child, but if my forces could allow it I'd take care of whatever many children there are to take care of.
I admit that as of now I can't act on this, adoption laws require a wife first, and I'm yet to marry, and as such it would also depend on the wife to make such a decision.
Unfortunately life can't allow you to do whatever you want...
kiryu133 said:
fred79 said:
wrong. it takes two to make a life. it should take two to take that life, as well. sexist jargon has no place in abortion. it has no place anywhere, other than in jokes. just like racism, or anything else that can be considered exclusionary.
But only one sex do the work. Males and females are not equal in this and never will be.
Theorically during pregnancy mothers should be exempted from all work, something that our enlightened societies won't do, since money comes after people, that means that the male should take on his shoulder fully the duty of providing to his wife, while this happens in a far lesser magnitude today.
Like a century ago, the pregnant wife would stay at home and take care for herself, while the husband would break his back ploughing fields.
Today it's a bit less reliant on the husband, as the pregnant mother has to work until what? The fifth month of pregnancy? But yeah, in theory it's supposed to be a division of the burden, the female gets to care for her unborn child while the husband works double the time to maintain them.
And that should also answer to JJ, the husband is the one that is supposed to give his wife the nourishment needed to take care of the fetus, if the mother is not capable of working during her pregnancy she shouldn't starve.
And besides, it's liberating for men if a woman has an abortion following that thought so...
Your reasonment only applies to scumbags who leave their girl after they hear of her pregnancy.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 11:34 AM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
But only one sex do the work. Males and females are not equal in this and never will be.
both sexes are responsible for the life they create. no matter what anyone says, or how society views this; regarding social evolution of the sexes and their so-called "rights", or the biology of females.
or do you not think that the male should take responsibility for doing his male part to create a life?
once that life is created, it is the responsibility of the PARENTS. not ONLY the female. it doesn't matter one whit that because of biology alone, she is forced to carry that life until birth. that is besides the point. it has to do strictly with responsibility, because each life costs resources, time, and effort.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 11:39 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 11:40, 13 Dec 2015.
|
Neraus said:
Theorically during pregnancy mothers should be exempted from all work, something that our enlightened societies won't do, since money comes after people, that means that the male should take on his shoulder fully the duty of providing to his wife, while this happens in a far lesser magnitude today.
Like a century ago, the pregnant wife would stay at home and take care for herself, while the husband would break his back ploughing fields.
Today it's a bit less reliant on the husband, as the pregnant mother has to work until what? The fifth month of pregnancy? But yeah, in theory it's supposed to be a division of the burden, the female gets to care for her unborn child while the husband works double the time to maintain them.
And that should also answer to JJ, the husband is the one that is supposed to give his wife the nourishment needed to take care of the fetus, if the mother is not capable of working during her pregnancy she shouldn't starve.
And besides, it's liberating for men if a woman has an abortion following that thought so...
Your reasonment only applies to scumbags who leave their girl after they hear of her pregnancy.
this. i was going to post something similar(in response to what jj posted), but you did it for me. thanks. nice to see someone else speaking reality, instead of spouting feminist propaganda.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 12:21 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
Theorically during pregnancy mothers should be exempted from all work, something that our enlightened societies won't do, since money comes after people, that means that the male should take on his shoulder fully the duty of providing to his wife, while this happens in a far lesser magnitude today.
Like a century ago, the pregnant wife would stay at home and take care for herself, while the husband would break his back ploughing fields.
Today it's a bit less reliant on the husband, as the pregnant mother has to work until what? The fifth month of pregnancy? But yeah, in theory it's supposed to be a division of the burden, the female gets to care for her unborn child while the husband works double the time to maintain them.
And that should also answer to JJ, the husband is the one that is supposed to give his wife the nourishment needed to take care of the fetus, if the mother is not capable of working during her pregnancy she shouldn't starve.
And besides, it's liberating for men if a woman has an abortion following that thought so...
Your reasonment only applies to scumbags who leave their girl after they hear of her pregnancy.
As you say, females put themselves in danger with pregnancies. as such, the final say to everything having to do with it is up to her, no exceptions. You are also approaching this with a hetero-normative mindset, which is not the right way to go. What if she got impregnated by someone in a night of fun? she has no obligation of contacting that person neither does he have any obligation of supporting her. In that case she has a choice: keeping the child and raising it on her own/with another partner or getting rid of it. If abortion is to be forbidden that choice would not exist and she'd have to raise the child. That does not encourage sexual or woman liberation.
Alternatively, if the male and female have a relationship and she gets pregnant. What if the male does not want a baby but the female does? It's his right to leave her if she does not change her mind, However, if that turns out to be the case, he might have to give monetary support if he was the primary provider.
What If she does not want to raise it with that father?
What if it's a lesbian couple taking in aid from an outside source in order to have a baby?
Either way, it's her decision. It is always her decision what to do. She will have to carry the child, deal with the health-problems and restricting what she can do in the way of work. Only she can decide if she wants that.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 12:47 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 12:49, 13 Dec 2015.
|
But disposing of the "hetero-normative" context is not relevant to what I was saying.
The discussion was about men not having burdens after impregnating a woman, not all possible other cases.
A man won't have a burden only if he abandons the woman.
In such a case the man has a say too, he will have to work more, and take more responsibilities, and besides, in a couple, a pregnancy can be accepted by the man and not by the woman, why did you exclude that?
And we come to the crux of why I'm against sexual liberation, a one night stand resulting in pregnancy will also result in a woman having to care alone for a baby, or abort it. The problem is that people are becoming more and more naive and child-like, people marry at later ages, they have a job at a later age, and then also have the audacity to divorce, all because we give people responsibilities later in life.
And why should we leave people without responsibilities? It takes two to tango, you can't possibly dance tango alone, and a baby is done through two, so why does one actor become free of his responsibility just because he doesn't feel "ready for it" or doesn't want to stay with someone?
Lesbian couples aren't part of the discussion because there is no man there, so why should we discuss the responsibility of the man there? The man gave his consent to use his sperm, but not to a single person. It's almost involuntary for him. And then his role becomes almost like the aforementioned scumbag who leaves the girl alone while she's pregnant, only with the justification that he doesn't even know who he impregnated.
kiryu133 said:
As you say, females put themselves in danger with pregnancies. as such, the final say to everything having to do with it is up to her, no exceptions.
Also, true, she has the final say, but that doesn't mean that a man doesn't have a say on her action.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Herry
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 12:52 PM |
- penalty applied by Corribus on 13 Dec 2015. |
|
JollyJoker] said:
I'm not your bro, and you have to learn about logic. By my own logic my opinion ON ABORTION is irrelevant - as is yours, or El's or everyone else's who's male.
[...]
I need to ask you this: What the **** is your problem? What are you trying to accomplish? Your nagging won't change anything, not the biology, not the laws, not even opinions.
Spouses lived happily for whole tens of centuries, what are you going to change? Do you think you are some sort of god? Or some kind of magician? You won't change anything. What benefits does this dispute have in store for humanity? Equality? No. You ain't going to accomplish anything, understand that.
Quote:
In case you din't notice, if it was different and pregnancy "duties" were shared, the problem wouldn't even exist.
Go ahead, tell us. How do you share pregnancy duties? What kind of father doesn't take care of his wife and child?
"Also, that you need sperm to fertilize an egg has no meaning for the following 9 month, since the sperm is the only effort needed here."
Oh, please. Everyone in this thread has just become dumber by listening to you. At no point did your incoherent rambling were you even close to a ration response. I award nothing and may God bless your soul.
How does that even work in real life? So you're saying the man gives the woman a creampie, and his part ends right there? In real life, people spend, work, and stay up always to insure that the wife has maximum comfort, and you, Mr.JJ, just come and say, "Meh meh meh, Family-toxic content, no useful point".
Be snowING REALISTIC. This is a damn discussion board on a piece of paper, nothing more than that. If you're here to fill it with crap, go somewhere else.
____________
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 01:06 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 13:08, 13 Dec 2015.
|
kiryu133 said:
You are also approaching this with a hetero-normative mindset, which is not the right way to go.
 the above statement is so stupid, that the "really?" smiley is the only thing capable of encompassing a proper response.
edit: i stand corrected. neraus did a better job in replying to this.
kiryu133 said:
What if she got impregnated by someone in a night of fun? she has no obligation of contacting that person neither does he have any obligation of supporting her.
and yet, a female can always contact that "father" later on, and legally ask for child support, which the male will have to pay, even though he didn't know a child even existed.
like i said, there's the real world, then there's the sexist fantasy world that feminists live in.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 01:11 PM |
|
|
Look, bad-mannered dude, as far as I'm concerned REALITY is quite good.
This map shows it - look at the color codes.
So it's the ANTI-abortion front that has a problem, except when you live in a red country - and strangely enough, if living in a RED country, I suppose abortion laws are not your biggest concern, especially when you are a woman.
The train is rolling into the right direction, whether you like or not, so it's you who should make a rerality check here. What I'm trying - in vain - to explain to you is that anti-abortionists are wasting everyone's time, because their claims and demands are crap - it's a complete waste of time and energy, considering how many fully developed human beings STARVE TO DEATH each year.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 01:13 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:22, 13 Dec 2015.
|
I dont understand how all this supporting husband argument is relevant to anything, those are cases when you have a couple willing to have a kid, similarly, in cases where both parties decide not to have a kid, you still have not much of a conflict (other than some religious people interfering and claiming God puts a soul to every fetus the minute it is concieved when in reality it does not posses the neorological network to have the slightest sign of what we call a personality or consciesness, yet. If "unplugging" brain dead people in a hospital isnt considered murder, how can aborting a fetus which even has no brain, is beyond me.)
Now, the only case when some gender's opinion counts higher, and one will always have to since this is an issue where it will never involve a just as significant third vote, is when one wants to have the kid and the other doesnt. So, is there anyone here who thinks a woman should carry the child despite her will if the man decides so? If not, what are you talking about?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 01:26 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
I pondered on this a lot actually, personally I would take care of abandoned children, I'd feel a bit strange of that kid not being my biological child, but if my forces could allow it I'd take care of whatever many children there are to take care of.
I admit that as of now I can't act on this, adoption laws require a wife first, and I'm yet to marry, and as such it would also depend on the wife to make such a decision.
If that is true, at least you're not a bigot and have a right to state your opinion, right or wrong. Someone unwilling to take responsibility for another's life but opposing abortion at the same time is practically advertising his own hypocrisy.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 01:30 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 13:35, 13 Dec 2015.
|
@JJ
Give me a reason that isn't in the following for abortion:
- Saving a woman's endangered life
- Not having the required resources to become a parent
- Not wanting to give birth to the child of a rapist
- Not allowing a ill child to be born
- Not allowing an unwanted child to be born
- Not feeling ready to become a parent
- Regretting having sex with a partner
- Not wanting to be pregnant to begin with
The first is the only one I can understand, the second is the state's fault for not giving bonuses to pregnant women, the third and the fourth semi-understandable.
But the first four have to do with things out of control of the mother, while the other are in her control.
So, for caprice we allow women to terminate a pregnancy, to steal a child from the state, to contribute to our demographic stagnation.
The problem that you won't understand is the major implication of allowing women not to have children, it is a societal problem after all, we can't possibly rely on some couples making one or two children to support a juggernaut of a state that relies on taxes, people get old, and once they're old they don't work anymore, who's gonna pay for pensions? That is the whole reason for having open borders, because of our stagnation.
But okay, be that way, if people like that don't breed maybe in a century we'll outlaw abortion again...
And really, children starving in Africa are in our control? You do realize that states won't do anything no matter the charities? Let's blame the unborn children instead, should they have been born they would have consumed that food that would never have reached Africa.
@artu
The supporting husband argument is the reason why males can have a say on abortion, nothing else, besides, I agreed that the final say is on the female.
It was a reply for those who said that the man's say is irrelevant.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 13, 2015 01:36 PM |
|
|
@Neraus
Well, we can have an opinion, of course. And we are exactly doing that, including JJ. But since this discussion pretty much revolves around the right to have an abortion, he is exactly refering to that "final say" when he says what men think is irrelevant.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
