Abortion [Archive]

Soul Rebel

30th June 2004, 22:00

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 30 2004, 09:33 PM
But consider how much more expensive abortion (especially later term) would be to the state than if people were just educated about free condoms. Im sorry but the economic argument just doesnt stick with me.
Thats really easy to say when you arent the one who has to educate the people on sex. I work for a shelter and have done a lot of educational sessions in and out of school and its tough. When you have no money being put into the program to teach about safe sex, you have nothing to work with.

BTW- PP is not a state sponsored org. Its basically up and running by people like myself who go to PP and by people who donate money. So the abortion costs the state nothing if done through PP. If you are concerned about costing the state money, i would concern myself with the foster care system instead.

And offording protection isnt the only economic argument of concern in abortion. I only gave that as an example. I would hope that you would see other issues of economics in this, such as not being able to actually raise a child. If you have no money to support yourself and are living paycheck to paycheck how are you to raise a child. There are so many issues that people seem to be unaware of. Im not going to list every single issue, but there are dozens and dozens of them.

Guerrilla22

30th June 2004, 22:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 07:15 PM
Three, and why would it matter what race they are? A friend of mine is trying to adopt a severly handicapped crack baby that is black. She is a big time capitalist that owns three businesses.
You're missing my point. One of the mai arguments that "Pro-life" advocates such as yourself use is that you should put a child up for adoption if you can't handle the financial burden of a child, while the orphan rate, especially that of African-Americans remains very high.

gummo

30th June 2004, 22:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:55 PM
youuu haaaaave nooo prooof....(in a singing voice)
You have no proof that your not a keyboard commie that's still suckin on your moms tit.

Postteen

30th June 2004, 22:38

If i were pregnant now,at my age,i wouldn't want to keep the baby(of course),so i'd "use" abortion.Now,if the baby or the mother are not heathly i'm for abortion too.

However, if a woman who is old enough, didn't want kids and didn't use a condom wants now to kill her baby....i don't know.I guess it'd be wrong to kill in that case a new life.(because of her fault,a new little baby to be killed?)

elijahcraig

1st July 2004, 02:21

I'm for abortion is certain circumstances, but tend to support anything which can avoid the killing of a fetus.

Rape, all that stuff--yes.
Careless pregnancy that could have been prevented--no.

DaCuBaN

1st July 2004, 02:23

Careless pregnancy that could have been prevented--no

I've a better solution for you: if you are deemed to have had more than one 'careless' pregnancy, you'll be spayed

elijahcraig

1st July 2004, 02:49

ok by me.

apathy maybe

1st July 2004, 03:02

I don't like any killing of any inteligent (or potentially inteligent) being.

I also consider that a fetus is alive and isn't strictly part of the mother's body.

So I oppose abortion.

If you don't want to have a baby (and are female), use a diaphram, get tubes tied, use anti-sperm cream. If you're male, use a condom, get tubes tied. Get your partner to use one of the options as well.

If you want something to read, read these threads
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...ghlite=abortion (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=11f3e84bcf918e0c906882e977ba7d4b&search_in=titles&result_type=topics&highlite=abortion)

Commie-K

1st July 2004, 04:07

The whole "can't afford condoms" debate is stupid. If you can't afford condoms, and don't want a baby, DON'T HAVE SEX. It's not that hard. If you can't buy 1 condom, you can't support a kid for 20 years and send them to college. Maybe if people actually thought about the now. But seriously, how hard is it to figure out for yourself that, if you can't get any type of birth control, and do not wants kids, to not have sex? Nobody is forcing you into it, unless it's rape of course, but I'm not talking about that. JUST STOP BEING SO STUPID AND THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE AND DON'T HAVE F-ING SEX!!!! Some people are so stupid.

DaCuBaN

1st July 2004, 04:09

Damn right

And spay anyone who dares to make a mistake... more than once!

orallyfixated

1st July 2004, 04:30

So, apathey maybe, the rights of a fetus should take precedence over the rights of a fully-developed, living woman? Think about that for a second...

Guerrilla22

1st July 2004, 06:49

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 30 2004, 09:33 PM
But consider how much more expensive abortion (especially later term) would be to the state than if people were just educated about free condoms. Im sorry but the economic argument just doesnt stick with me.
Yes, however condoms are not 100% effective.

[/QUOTE]The whole "can't afford condoms" debate is stupid. If you can't afford condoms, and don't want a baby, DON'T HAVE SEX. It's not that hard. If you can't buy 1 condom, you can't support a kid for 20 years and send them to college. Maybe if people actually thought about the now. But seriously, how hard is it to figure out for yourself that, if you can't get any type of birth control, and do not wants kids, to not have sex? Nobody is forcing you into it, unless it's rape of course, but I'm not talking about that. JUST STOP BEING SO STUPID AND THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE AND DON'T HAVE F-ING SEX!!!! Some people are so stupid

However, in reality people are going to have sex all the time, there's no stopping them. America presents a sexually repressive culture to it's youth and the end result is that it pushes kids to want to do it more. Also, if someone is not economically capable of supporting a child, they should not bring it into the world. Please, no one try and use the give your kid up for adoption argumnet either, because the reality is that being an orphan, especially if you are a minority, just leads to life long hardship.

scrap metal

1st July 2004, 08:03

I've heard many views on abaortion, many very far-out.

Some have said that aborition should only be allowed if it was done via a bullet to the mothers head. Some are not so far-out, saying abortion should also destroy the uterus, so that a woman can only have one, making sure she really wants it.

Of course, there are those who (joking, hopefuly) think it should not only be legal, but mandatory. Some people think they know whats best for everyone.

My point? I think it's a sad state that men will, inevitably, decide. Why? Let women get together and decicde. Mewn wouldn't let women decide on vasectimy laws, why should men decide abortion laws?

elijahcraig

1st July 2004, 08:07

So, apathey maybe, the rights of a fetus should take precedence over the rights of a fully-developed, living woman? Think about that for a second...

Stop *****ing, *****..

I will expand when not drunk.

Guerrilla22

1st July 2004, 08:12

[QUOTE]I will expand when not drunk.

:lol:

Funky Monk

1st July 2004, 09:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 11:00 PM
Thats really easy to say when you arent the one who has to educate the people on sex. I work for a shelter and have done a lot of educational sessions in and out of school and its tough. When you have no money being put into the program to teach about safe sex, you have nothing to work with.

BTW- PP is not a state sponsored org. Its basically up and running by people like myself who go to PP and by people who donate money. So the abortion costs the state nothing if done through PP. If you are concerned about costing the state money, i would concern myself with the foster care system instead.

And offording protection isnt the only economic argument of concern in abortion. I only gave that as an example. I would hope that you would see other issues of economics in this, such as not being able to actually raise a child. If you have no money to support yourself and are living paycheck to paycheck how are you to raise a child. There are so many issues that people seem to be unaware of. Im not going to list every single issue, but there are dozens and dozens of them.
Oh i completely agree with the argument about people not being able to afford to look after a child, however i see prevention rather than abortion as the key. I don't see a need to abortion if young people are better educated. The idea of abortion as a contraceptive just scares me when there are cheaper healthier ways of doing it.

I think one of the issues raised is that when young people have children a viscious circle is quite often set up, ive heard of a girl who was a grandmother by 28.

But i say again that effective education is the key rather than abortion.

Sabocat

1st July 2004, 11:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:23 PM

I've a better solution for you: if you are deemed to have had more than one 'careless' pregnancy, you'll be spayed
I notice how you carefully chose to use the word spay, rather than neutered. So it is solely the woman's responsibility not to get pregnant, not the man's as well?

For her irresponsibility, she gets to be the one with a medical procedure to prevent childbirth. :blink:

The whole "can't afford condoms" debate is stupid. If you can't afford condoms, and don't want a baby, DON'T HAVE SEX. It's not that hard. If you can't buy 1 condom, you can't support a kid for 20 years and send them to college. Maybe if people actually thought about the now. But seriously, how hard is it to figure out for yourself that, if you can't get any type of birth control, and do not wants kids, to not have sex? Nobody is forcing you into it, unless it's rape of course, but I'm not talking about that. JUST STOP BEING SO STUPID AND THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE AND DON'T HAVE F-ING SEX!!!! Some people are so stupid.

Yes, the whole worlds population lives next to a convenience store in which they can just freely go in and buy condoms. What about the poorest segment of the worlds population that literally has no money to purchase them?

Oh...that's right. The poor aren't supposed to have sex.

You also seem to be implying that sex should only be for pro-creation. That's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've read in a long time. I think the Catholic church has a job opening for you. :lol:

Commie-K

1st July 2004, 11:40

I'm not saying that... but is it not obvious that if you don't have birth control the possibility of pregnancy is there? All I'm saying is people need to be more sexually concious.

Hiero

1st July 2004, 13:47

My thought on the idea of women getting abortion to commonly after the second abortion she should have her tubes tied and if she doesnt agree then she should be take to some rehab clinic untill the baby is born.

Sabocat

1st July 2004, 14:53

So the man has no responsibility in this matter? Birth control is strictly up to the woman?

You've gone from not only medically preventing her from future childbirth (probably against her will), but are also in favor of some kind of draconian incarceration euphemistically labelled as a rehab clinic?

Why not just put the "slut" in a pillory out in the town square?

You people amaze me.

Pawn Power

1st July 2004, 15:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 10:07 PM
You have no proof that your not a keyboard commie that's still suckin on your moms tit.
well, im not, but i cant prove that i guess right now, but i do like tits if their not my mothers

so we agree then we both have no proof and i like tits :angry:

DaCuBaN

1st July 2004, 18:50

So it is solely the woman's responsibility not to get pregnant, not the man's as well?

Not at all, and I apologise if anyone took it in the manner. I was careless in my choice of words.

I will change to say 'neutered' here, for the simple fact that I would like the difference to be known that the aspect of sexual desire should also be curtailed in those who do not have sufficient psychological 'controls' to withhold themselves. Gender is irrelevant.

Sorry, but I have no tolerance here.

Misodoctakleidist

1st July 2004, 19:54

I don't see why anyone cares how many abortions someone has, why are some of you so eager to keep abortion rates low?

Stapler

1st July 2004, 22:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:54 PM
I don't see why anyone cares how many abortions someone has, why are some of you so eager to keep abortion rates low?
Because on some level they feel that abortion and termination of a fetus is wrong. That's a perfectly justifiable stance, people on this board shouldn't be intimidated to speak and do what they feel. Because the established religion is "pro-life" many people feel that anything but a contrarian stance is an ignorant relic of a patriarchal culture. The fact is, abortion cannot be argued, you either beleive that abortion is murder, or you believe that women have the right to choose, there is no way to successfullly change someone's mind on the issue.

Personally, I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose wether they put the child up for adoption, terminate the pregancy, or raise the child. Nobody can correctly guage the reasons for a choice, so it is impossible to create a system of fair controls over abortion, e.g: medical reasons, deformities, etc... Either way, abortion will always be a hotly contested topic, you either value quality of life, or quantity of life, there is no in between.

DaCuBaN

1st July 2004, 22:14

I'm not saying what I think... it would probably result in a kick from this site if I did, and hence I temper my opinions to suit 'the norm' here.

Says a lot considering my views in here are quite 'unpopular' anyway.

Stapler

2nd July 2004, 00:50

I want to hear them, any assertion that a strong pro-life or pro-choice stance would effect your loyalty to the revolution is proposterous.

DaCuBaN

2nd July 2004, 00:55

Ok, well I would take birth control to totally new levels. People would be appointed reproductive partners best suited to them to both help foster intellect and to erradicate disease. Recreational sex would be outlawed, and I'd feed bromide into the water supply so the desire was restricted. People who dissented would be neutered.

For obvious reasons I don't promote this idea - Most people aren't rational enough simply to take the argument for what it is, and would get all miffed at the thought of me taking away their 'precious freedoms'.

But then I never said I was a nice person, and lucky for you I would never take a position of authority - in ANY society.

orallyfixated

2nd July 2004, 00:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:07 AM

Stop *****ing, *****..

I will expand when not drunk.
Yes, by all means you wino fucktard, please expand.

Stapler

2nd July 2004, 01:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 12:55 AM
Ok, well I would take birth control to totally new levels. People would be appointed reproductive partners best suited to them to both help foster intellect and to erradicate disease. Recreational sex would be outlawed, and I'd feed bromide into the water supply so the desire was restricted. People who dissented would be neutered.
Why?

DaCuBaN

2nd July 2004, 01:09

Because the world would be a better place without idiots?
Because we have vast overpopulation?
Because our society in the west has no substance other than sexual relations and the forerunners to it?

Stapler

2nd July 2004, 01:43

I guess this is another thing that just can't be argued. However, I will state my opinion on the matter. People who refer to women who have abortions as "too lazy" to use protection are very much mistaken, many people aren't educated properly on contraception because of the religious beleifs of their parents, or of their schools. I am told by a number of friends that they were not given courses in sexual education until the ninth grade, at which point many parents opted to exempt their children from the class for personal or religious reasons.

Dacuban, Orwell would have a thing to say about you. Although I can see where you're coming from. Women should recieve mandatory training in how to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, and require a licence to raise children. Ignorance originates with apathetic and irresponsible parents - of which I am aware of many. I think that elimination of recreational sex is a very bad Idea, as my life, and many other lives have been greatly enriched by it. It is an integral part in the quality of lives of may people, and just because it exploited by capitalists for advertising purposes doesn't mean that it is a bad thing.

Also, before anyone hits dacuban below the belt with any remarks about his sexual identity (the size of his penis, etc...), I would like to remind you all that this is a respectful debate.

DaCuBaN

2nd July 2004, 01:54

A very subtle jab there Stapler... I commend you ;)

elimination of recreational sex is a very bad Idea, as my life, and many other lives have been greatly enriched by it

I agree to an extent - I don't think many people would say they didn't get something out of it, but it's a distraction. Incidentally, I would advise you look up the effects of bromide - it was given to soldiers in the first world war, and was proved remarkably effective.

Orwell would have a thing to say about you

:lol: I'm sure he would... I do so like his work ;)

I am told by a number of friends that they were not given courses in sexual education until the ninth grade, at which point many parents opted to exempt their children from the class for personal or religious reasons

I'm appalled by this kind of thing. We live in a society where sex is 'in your face' in day to day life, and our mainstream culture is almost exclusively based around it, yet there are people out there who still think the 'cotton wool' tactic has some merit?

For the record, I never actually peddle these views, and I wouldn't try to get them in place in any way shape or form on the basis that I would undoubtably fail in the process, if not get hung drawn and quartered by a large percentage of the planet's population.

Y2A

2nd July 2004, 02:04

What are you talking about DaCuban? Elimination of recreational sex! Are you serious! Not only is that completely ludicrous but it is also impossible to enforce without a totalitarian state. Freedom or death I say!

Stapler

2nd July 2004, 02:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:04 AM
What are you talking about DaCuban? Elimination of recreational sex! Are you serious! Not only is that completely ludicrous but it is also impossible to enforce without a totalitarian state. Freedom or death I say!
Yes, old enough to pee is good enough for me! throw that in there too.

Y2A

2nd July 2004, 02:13

I don't know about. However, I do some what concur with the saying "Old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher"

DaCuBaN

2nd July 2004, 02:16

You don't need a totalitarian regime to eliminate sex ;)

Linkage (http://www.newscientist.com/lastword/article.jsp?id=lw848)

C'mon folks, surely you've heard this before?

Stapler

2nd July 2004, 02:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:13 AM
I don't know about. However, I do some what concur with the saying "Old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher"
You're just an all-round nice guy.

Hiero

2nd July 2004, 09:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:54 PM
I don't see why anyone cares how many abortions someone has, why are some of you so eager to keep abortion rates low?
Becuase stupid *****es* should stop wasting the states money and time.

* For the femminist i use the term *****es to describe both male and female

Raisa

2nd July 2004, 10:18

....eh forget it.

apathy maybe

2nd July 2004, 12:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 11:57 AM
Yes, by all means you wino fucktard, please expand.
Tut tut.

I will expand. I think of a fetus as equal in rights to a new born child. Both are reliant on another for survival (the mother generally). Both are "just a bunch of cells", it just so happens that there are more cells in a baby then a fetus, and the cells are arranged differently.

I know of some people who consider both to be irrelevant. I also know of people who think that a fetus is not equal in rights to a new born child.

The only problem that I can see if you have abortion legal (which I don't think it should be for reasons above), is that where do you draw the line? 2 weeks? 3 weeks? 2 months?

Has any one looked at those search results yet? Lots aren't there.

Misodoctakleidist

2nd July 2004, 13:13

a feotus is clearly different to a new born baby, a baby is self-aware, it knows it exists.

Stapler

2nd July 2004, 15:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 01:13 PM
a feotus is clearly different to a new born baby, a baby is self-aware, it knows it exists.
not immediately after birth, at what point does a baby become self aware?

Rex_20XD6

2nd July 2004, 17:46

I think that abortions should be stopped after two mounts of pregnancy because then the baby has developed a brain.

Soul Rebel

2nd July 2004, 20:55

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 1 2004, 01:47 PM
My thought on the idea of women getting abortion to commonly after the second abortion she should have her tubes tied and if she doesnt agree then she should be take to some rehab clinic untill the baby is born.
wow, so you want to carry out sterilization programs just like the one the US government carried out on black, hispanic, and native womyn? What a fucking way to go man. Lets take the choice away from womyn and put it in the hands of racist men. Brilliant <_<

pandora

2nd July 2004, 21:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 10:19 AM
Yes, however condoms are not 100% effective.

The whole "can't afford condoms" debate is stupid. If you can't afford condoms, and don't want a baby, DON'T HAVE SEX. It's not that hard. If you can't buy 1 condom, you can't support a kid for 20 years and send them to college. Maybe if people actually thought about the now. But seriously, how hard is it to figure out for yourself that, if you can't get any type of birth control, and do not wants kids, to not have sex? Nobody is forcing you into it, unless it's rape of course, but I'm not talking about that. JUST STOP BEING SO STUPID AND THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE AND DON'T HAVE F-ING SEX!!!! Some people are so stupid

[/quote]
In Indigenous medicine there are many herbs that are used traditionally to create abortion.

It was only not allowed because OF THE CHRISTIANS, before that in indigenous communities it was the job of the midwife and the woman herself, the only two people who should be involved in this decision.

I know you are making fun of this mind set here but you are still confusing religion with politics. Of course we all know the moral majority is neither.

pandora

2nd July 2004, 21:14

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 2 2004, 01:19 PM
Becuase stupid *****es* should stop wasting the states money and time.

* For the femminist i use the term *****es to describe both male and female
First off when referring to abortion rights how are you referring to men when you say *****es, a pale attempt to right obvious misogynistic wording, what do you really believe we´re that ignorant?

Second, oh yes, it costs society so much less to care for an unwanted child in terms of drug abuse, disease, street children, education, etc, etc.

What was your point, I forgot.

Regardless to say it was stupid.
Cost of a child $400,000-1,000,000US
Cost of an abortion $400.
I rest my case.

Your arguement wins the ignorance award though :D
As it goes against every piece of government accounting available. The reality is the right wing doesn´t want to pay for social services to support poor children, this is all just an excuse.
In reality they are cutting not just social services but education GLOBALLY
THE REAL STRUGGLE FOR FREE AND EQUAL EDUCATION HAS BEGUN.
Because now they say we have it, but it gets worse daily, and is eroded, and some areas have never even seen it. It´s like the tides gone out on education.
Get active locally, support education locally
AND PLEASE READ SOMETHING TO EDUCATE YOURSELVES; the comments here are showing how ignorant the population is becoming.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd July 2004, 22:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:55 PM
not immediately after birth, at what point does a baby become self aware?
Babies begin to show signs of self awareness at 6 months and show the most measurable signs of self awareness from 11 to 14 months of age.

Pandora and SenoraChe,

Do you feel that the choice to have an abortion is solely reserved for the woman?

Guerrilla22

2nd July 2004, 22:59

today I was watching the "right to life conference" in D.C. on C-SPAN. I was listening to some Rep. from New Jersey rail on the funding of various UN agencies that provide abortions to women in third world countries by the US. This fool stated that women are being forced into having mandatory abortions and that the money should be used to help people, but not for abortions. Again, another clueless American, who has no idea of the economic plight and over population crisis of those living in under developed nations.

themessiah

3rd July 2004, 19:48

pandora, your entire case rests upon attaching a DOLLAR VALUE to life. regardless of whether you classify it as human or not.

that is a flimsy case at best.

its almost as if you are intentionally attempting to lose the argument based on that premise alone

isn't adoption free?

DarkAngel

4th July 2004, 17:01

Why do you people care so much about what women decide to do with a part of their bodies? They baby is not alive yet, so why do you people give a fuck? And I agree with the idea that men shouldnt have a say in the baby while its still in the mother, because up until that point, the male has done nothing but enjoy the process. But equal rights should be granted after birth as long as both parents are involved. Anyways only the women should have a say in what she does with her body, not some white rebublican middle aged male, not anybody but you. Well atleast in my opinion.....

Vinny Rafarino

4th July 2004, 17:58

And I agree with the idea that men shouldnt have a say in the baby while its still in the mother, because up until that point, the male has done nothing but enjoy the process.

I was going to inform you how misanthropistic this viewpoint is but I forgot you are still a teen. You have yet begun to realise that men also share a genetic bond with their child and can be emotionally traumatized just as much as the woman.

In addition, when you say that men have done nothing but "enjoy the process" are you attempting to say that women somehow do not "enjoy the process"? Are you saying that women have sex only to reproduce and do not enjoy it like those filthy man-devils?

You have a lot of growing up to do.

The decision to abort must be made by both parties. (if they are both availabe) Any other viewpoint is simple misanthropy.

synthesis

4th July 2004, 18:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:48 PM
pandora, your entire case rests upon attaching a DOLLAR VALUE to life. regardless of whether you classify it as human or not.
So should we now avoid treating people for viral and bacterial infections? After all, that's "life" just as much as an undeveloped fetus is.

bobby

4th July 2004, 23:40

I agree with abortion on certain circumstances, rape, etc. But not as birth control.

Are you saying that women have sex only to reproduce and do not enjoy it like those filthy man-devils?

:lol:

Feminist Elijah Muhammad.

Our Trust and Provider Matt

5th July 2004, 01:18

I'm 100% pro-abortion. If abortion itself was made illegal, then abortion clinics would be useless and probabaly torn down. And then where would i go to pick up chicks? Elementary school? It's a possibility, but i say Go Abortion Clinics.

bobby

5th July 2004, 01:21

And then where would i go to pick up chicks? Elementary school? It's a possibility, but i say Go Abortion Clinics.

I've heard a similar Chris Rock joke.

Our Trust and Provider Matt

5th July 2004, 01:35

Actually, i picked up the idea from Dogma, a Kevin Smith movie. In particular, the part where Jay and Silent Bob reveal that they were lurking about the abortion clinic looking for "loose chicks, BONG" Although i've never heard a Chris Rock joke like that, i wouldn't put it past him. Also, i'm a bit offended that you would call my inventiveness into check, i keep it real. Either way, i would also request emperical evidence and a quote to back the Chris Rock telling Jay and Silent Bob jokes, i'm intrigued.

bobby

5th July 2004, 01:42

I remember the joke now.

Chris Rock used "abortion rallies."

HMMM, are we on to something?

Call Rolling Stone.

Our Trust and Provider Matt

5th July 2004, 02:04

Chris Rock is a bastard then. He aids the Reaction in every possible sense of the term. Although, if i remember correctly, he might have some rights to the joke, he was Jesus's homedog in the movie. Borus was his name or something along those lines. I only remember 'cause his "piece" was rubbing all up in Silent Bob's Armour. (jacket)

elijahcraig

5th July 2004, 03:49

You and bobby are really onto something there.

themessiah

5th July 2004, 06:04

so you get restricted for opposing abortion?

very liberal minded

long live the genocidal revolution! I guess

elijahcraig

5th July 2004, 07:01

Shut the fuck up^

Vinny Rafarino

5th July 2004, 07:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:04 AM
so you get restricted for opposing abortion?

very liberal minded

long live the genocidal revolution! I guess
What the hell are you on about?

elijahcraig

5th July 2004, 07:18

themessiah liked to screw around in the philosophy forum too. He never really makes any arguments he just acts like some sort of victim.

Quite the bastard.

Hiero

5th July 2004, 07:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 09:14 PM
First off when referring to abortion rights how are you referring to men when you say *****es, a pale attempt to right obvious misogynistic wording, what do you really believe we´re that ignorant?

Second, oh yes, it costs society so much less to care for an unwanted child in terms of drug abuse, disease, street children, education, etc, etc.

What was your point, I forgot.

Regardless to say it was stupid.
Cost of a child $400,000-1,000,000US
Cost of an abortion $400.
I rest my case.

Your arguement wins the ignorance award though :D
As it goes against every piece of government accounting available. The reality is the right wing doesn´t want to pay for social services to support poor children, this is all just an excuse.
In reality they are cutting not just social services but education GLOBALLY
THE REAL STRUGGLE FOR FREE AND EQUAL EDUCATION HAS BEGUN.
Because now they say we have it, but it gets worse daily, and is eroded, and some areas have never even seen it. It´s like the tides gone out on education.
Get active locally, support education locally
AND PLEASE READ SOMETHING TO EDUCATE YOURSELVES; the comments here are showing how ignorant the population is becoming.
OK i could act in two ways 1) a moron like you 2) normal and think your a moron and let it slid. You have jump to conclusion.

Early in the thread i said that women should be told to have there tubes tied if tehy were getting to many abortions. So no do your calculation on cost of abortion then compare it two the cost of getting tubes tied + the cost of nothing there after since tubes are tied.

Misodoctakleidist

5th July 2004, 18:12

You're an idiot neonate, this is why no one likes you.

Soul Rebel

5th July 2004, 21:00

Early in the thread i said that women should be told to have there tubes tied if tehy were getting to many abortions.

Why should anyone tell a woman what the hell to do with her body? Who are you to say that womyn need to be told to get sterilized? If a woman wants it than fine, but you have no right to demand that other womyn be told to get it done. This is about their choice, their bodies, and their lives.

And second, once you go down that road you end up back were we were in the 18th and 19th century- eugenics, which continued right up to the 1970's. This whole "telling womyn to get their tubes tied" thing would be used mostly on minority womyn, as in the past. This means that there will be another whole generation of womyn unable to have children because of a racist goverment and racist doctors. But hey, as long as its all done to "save the better race" and "save some cash" its worth it.

You really need to start thinking these things out before you start preaching ridiculous ideas.

So no do your calculation on cost of abortion then compare it two the cost of getting tubes tied + the cost of nothing there after since tubes are tied.

You really are one confused person. You are mislead just like those supporting the death penalty. Both anti-choicers and pro-death people believe that it is cheaper to do away with a womans choice and to kill someone, when the reality is that its not cheaper in any way.

For one, you get an abortion and thats usually just it. You pay for the procedure, which is often non-surgical. And thats it. The only person paying for it is the woman.

Now, if you take away abortion it gets expensive. Sterilization for one costs a lot more than an abortion. Also, because not everyone will be getting sterilized, those that have unwanted children will be putting them in foster care, which costs the state way more than an abortion, or up for adoption, which does cost money. Or if the womyn who do not want their children end up getting a back alley abortion which usually leads to death of the womyn or a serious infection. In either case, its going to cost the state a lot of money because they will have to treat the woman if she survives or investigate the death. Also, if abortion is illegal, so much money will be spent by the state to ensure that abortion does not happen. This means that police and investigators will be checking clinics all the time or checking out suspected abortionists. If caught, the abortionist will be thrown in jail and then will be tried. And the list goes on.

You have to know about the history of abortion and the medical field in order to see what the real consequences are. If you are educated on the history you will realize what the real problem is and what is truly cheaper.

So, if you are only concerned about the state, and not a damn bit about womyn, then i suggest you start reconsidering your position because the position you have now in no way helps society/state.

Our Trust and Provider Matt

5th July 2004, 22:25

Still waiting for emperical evidence for my lawsuit against Chris Rock..... I need it to continue my life, bobby.

elijahcraig

5th July 2004, 22:49

You're an idiot neonate, this is why no one likes you.

I like him. He's got good cheeks.

Why should anyone tell a woman what the hell to do with her body?

Because it's not her body. It's the body created by the man and woman who had sex.

Who are you to say that womyn need to be told to get sterilized?

He didn't say they "need" to get sterilized.

Womyn? Right, idiot.

If a woman wants it than fine, but you have no right to demand that other womyn be told to get it done. This is about their choice, their bodies, and their lives.

Woman now? Why the inconsistency?

And second, once you go down that road you end up back were we were in the 18th and 19th century- eugenics, which continued right up to the 1970's. This whole "telling womyn to get their tubes tied" thing would be used mostly on minority womyn, as in the past. This means that there will be another whole generation of womyn unable to have children because of a racist goverment and racist doctors. But hey, as long as its all done to "save the better race" and "save some cash" its worth it.

What does race have to do with this? And this isn't about "cash" or "saving better race" (not sure how you got that one), it's about not throwing away potential humans to recklessness.

Guerrilla22

6th July 2004, 09:07

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 07:32 AM
OK i could act in two ways 1) a moron like you 2) normal and think your a moron and let it slid. You have jump to conclusion.

Early in the thread i said that women should be told to have there tubes tied if tehy were getting to many abortions. So no do your calculation on cost of abortion then compare it two the cost of getting tubes tied + the cost of nothing there after since tubes are tied.
<_< Nice display of chauvinism. Maybe if you keep fathering children and neglect to pay child support you should be castrated.

Hiero

6th July 2004, 09:14

I like him. He's got good cheeks.

Um ok then.

Womyn? Right, idiot.

Was about to comment on that

The problem i see with abortions is not womens rights, not does the feutos have anyn rights. The problem is that i see a society relying on the quick fix.

"hey hunny im pregnant again"-female "not again its only been a week" -male "maybe we should be more carefull in the future and use condoms or since im not having a baby i or you should get desterlized"-female "HA dont be so stupid now days with abortions and what not who really cares"-male "haha your right who really gives a fuck, we sure dont"

Same with computers and a old people who think that computers now can fix everything.

Hiero

6th July 2004, 09:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:00 PM
Early in the thread i said that women should be told to have there tubes tied if tehy were getting to many abortions.

Why should anyone tell a woman what the hell to do with her body? Who are you to say that womyn need to be told to get sterilized? If a woman wants it than fine, but you have no right to demand that other womyn be told to get it done. This is about their choice, their bodies, and their lives.

I ment to say encourage to get tubes tied or the other with the male. Or maybe i meant to say i want to bash women, im not really sure you can make that choice for me SenoraChe.

Soul Rebel

6th July 2004, 13:40

[/QUOTE]
Because it's not her body. It's the body created by the man and woman who had sex.

It is her body. She lives in it everyday, functions with it, makes choices about what she puts in it, where it goes, etc. It is hers and nobody elses. Doesnt matter who created it- its still her body.

He didn't say they "need" to get sterilized.

Yes he did. When you say that womyn should be told to get sterilized, its the same damn thing.

Womyn? Right, idiot.

The only idiot i see here is you. You lack any intelligence, which is why you always depend on insults during a debate. I dont think anyone here has ever seen you make a post without an insult. Hell, i dont think you've ever even made a valuable, interesting post.

What does race have to do with this?

Damn, the point i was making really isnt all that hard to follow. Like i said, when you know the history of abortion and sterilization programs you will realize how dangerous it is to take away our right to choose and to have sterilization programs. I suggest you reread the post to understand what i was saying.

And this isn't about "cash" or "saving better race" (not sure how you got that one), it's about not throwing away potential humans to recklessness.

Gee, i dont know. How about the fact that Neo was mentioning economics in like three posts? He kept saying that sterilization was cheaper and i was giving the real facts on that. And like i said, if you want to understand the abortion issue, learn its history. I did not say that anyone he said to save the better race. I was saying that it was typical thought during the time sterilization programs were being carried out. Next time, read the post a little more slowly because it seems you dont understand anything at all.

This is an issue about choice, not about potentiality.

And did you ever consider that not all people get pregnant due to "recklessness"? Or that all people who get abortions are doing so as a form of birth control? There are people who do get raped, who do have diseases that could harm the fetus, who could die during birth, who are economically challenged, who are too young, had condoms break, etc. It doesnt matter thecircumstance, they should have the right. This is going to affect their lives. There is no reason why they shouldnt have the choice to abort. Nobody, especially someone who could never get pregnant, should have to take that choice away.

Its funny how people who are so against abortion end up changing their minds when something happens to them. I have had so many arguments and confrontations with anti-choicers and what do you know- later on down the road these are the same people calling me up asking me if i will find them a clinic who performs them and go with them. I have had to help at least four people with this- people who had claimed to be anti-choicers until the unwanted pregnancy came. Goes to show that you cant judge until you are in that persons shoes. You never know what will happen to you or if abortion will have to become a choice you make. Luckily, abortion was a choice that they could make when the time came.

Hiero

7th July 2004, 02:40

SenoraChe can you stop assuming that i am ani choice. Thats the problem with femminist on this site always jumping to the conclusion that if a man has a different opionon he is just a chauvinistic bastard.

synthesis

7th July 2004, 02:46

You are a chauvinist if you support forced sterilization for "irresponsible" women but not "irresponsible" men.

Vinny Rafarino

7th July 2004, 03:49

What is amazing is that anyone would actually consider forced sterilization
as a method of "birth control".

It's the stupidest thing I have heard of since the "pet rock".

Another excuse that's completely stupid is the idea that women using abortion as a method of birth control would actually EVER become a problem.

The very small amount of women that would ever consider this to be a "good idea" would be suffering from a mental disorder that affects their perception and decision making abilities.

These TINY amounts of women should be treated for mental illness, not treated like "irresponsible" or "stupid" women that for some reason ( a reason that defies all logic and reality) think aborting a baby is "the way to go".

This absurd scenario is just another lame excuse used by anti-abortion conservatives to give their archaic ideas some sort of merit.

I've noticed that the people who do want to tread the line of rational thinking by using this excuse are bourgeois liberals and "leftists".

Bourgeois liberals have to follow their caucus so they cannot vote "anti" in fear that another democratic party member accuse them of being soft on conservatism.

"Leftists" use the excuse because they gave up using the "god's children" rhetoric when they claimed to be a "leftist".

EDIT:

Anyway, "standard" abortion should be legalised up until the moment of birth whith both parent's consent, if applicable.

Non standard abortion (rape victims etc.) should be lagalised up until the moment of birth with only the woman's consent.

Period.

Hiero

7th July 2004, 03:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:46 AM
You are a chauvinist if you support forced sterilization for "irresponsible" women but not "irresponsible" men.
Your an idiot if you cant read properly, i said encourage. I dont really care any more, i think abortion should be legal but dont you think that it is logic for the doctor to say to a women who has had abortion say for example more then twice that it would be more convienent for her to get her tubes tied or for the male to do the same.

Guerrilla22

7th July 2004, 03:59

[QUOTE]These TINY amounts of women should be treated for mental illness, not treated like "irresponsible" or "stupid" women that for some reason ( a reason that defies all logic and reality) think aborting a baby is "the way

RAF makes a good point here. We need to not categorize women who have unwanted pregnancies as stupid, irresponsible sluts that don't know any better. Like I stated before, accidents happen, it is still possible to get pregnate, even if a condom is used. We just need to have the option of abortion avaible if a mother feels she needs it.

synthesis

7th July 2004, 04:25

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 6 2004, 08:58 PM
Your an idiot if you cant read properly, i said encourage. I dont really care any more, i think abortion should be legal but dont you think that it is logic for the doctor to say to a women who has had abortion say for example more then twice that it would be more convienent for her to get her tubes tied or for the male to do the same.
Well, if that's your position, then I apologize. I grouped you in with the people who do support forced sterilization, and that was stupid of me.

themessiah

7th July 2004, 06:47

how liberal minded is supporting what is arguably murder? I will argue that abortion is murder. and my argument is a good one, and it is popular. AND it is liberal. it hinges upon defending THE WEAKEST members of society.

the answer is not liberal minded at all

and to futhur this is what IS LIBERAL, freedom of expression. my inability to express my disdain for this process is a complete indication of the FASCIST nature of this message board.

don't even bother pretending your socialist. you're not. you're a disgrace. restrict my membership for not supporting abortion. hypocrites. I am far more liberal minded and far more socialist than all of you "commie" club members put together.

last I checked, all you morons do is say the same things and present the same arguments, as they've already been presented, time and time again. and then sit around in the club looking for new excuses to ban people. in a true socialist and communal way. christ. what a bunch of wannabee know nothing idiots.

reinstate my mebership. now.

Guerrilla22

7th July 2004, 06:51

[QUOTE]how liberal minded is supporting what is arguably murder? I will argue that abortion is murder. and my argument is a good one, and it is popular. AND it is liberal. it hinges upon defending THE WEAKEST members of society.

Well if it is a popular belief then it must be right and if it is your personal belief also, well that just makes your argument that much stronger, since you are the messiah and all.

DaCuBaN

7th July 2004, 07:36

it is liberal. it hinges upon defending THE WEAKEST members of society

Perhaps, but at the expense of another - the mother. There are countless valid reasons for abortion. Liberal however is all about freedom, NOT about 'protecting' those you feel require it. That's just your own morals.

my inability to express my disdain for this process is a complete indication of the FASCIST nature of this message board

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you not expressing your opinion now?

reinstate my mebership. now.

:lol: No? :lol:

Vinny Rafarino

7th July 2004, 09:02

I will argue that abortion is murder. and my argument is a good one, and it is popular. AND it is liberal

In Bizarroworld perhaps.

reinstate my mebership. now.

10 points above the vig and we're on, toughguy.

Hiero

7th July 2004, 10:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:25 AM
Well, if that's your position, then I apologize. I grouped you in with the people who do support forced sterilization, and that was stupid of me.
I take back the idiot remake, now that you have responded like that i feel bad.

Guerrilla22

7th July 2004, 11:03

I apologize too for everything bad that I have done in my life.

Trissy

7th July 2004, 14:58

Okay, first I'll state my views on abortion. Basically I'm pro-choice because I believe that a group of cells is not a human life until it has a brain and can feel pain, and also because I view the existing life of the mother as more important then the possible life of the foetus. The foetus is dependant on the mother for everything and if abortion we illegal then the mother could be driven to commit suicide which would in turn kill the child.

I'm also pro-choice because I don't believe we have the right to force a child onto a woman. If the argument is that a woman chooses to have sex and so must face the consequences of this choice then I will argue that it is harsh to punish both mother and child for the mother making a bad choice. If everybody were made to pay for their mistakes their whole life then I think we'd all be a bit more understanding on this issue. If a mother doesn't want tp have a child then I think it's a bit unfair to say it's because she's selfish or because she's an evil monster. Sometimes having an abortion is the most loving responce because it is the hardest to choose and because sometimes a woman is aware that she can't provide the things a child both needs and deserves (whether this be because the father has run off or because she is extremely poor, etc). I feel angry at pro-lifers who kill and attack people who work at abortion clinics and feel angry that the religious pro-lifers feel they can impose a punishment on a person and then claim it's because they're more loving then people who are pro-choice!!!

I will argue that abortion is murder
...and I will ask you to define 'personhood'. If a group of cells isn't a human then it's not murder.

AND it is liberal
Since when was trying to force women to have children liberal? How can you say that people who want to introduce legislation that will cause women to risk their lives having backstreet abortions are liberal? How can you say that destorying hundreds of thousands of lives is liberal?

restrict my membership for not supporting abortion. hypocrites
No. Your membership was restricted beause I highlighted that you had been restricted before, that you rarely ever add anything positive to a debate, that you tend to state that everything you say and think is right, and that you insult anybody who dares think differently to you. I promised you I'd bring it up and I did :D

last I checked, all you morons do is say the same things and present the same arguments, as they've already been presented, time and time again
a) since when did you ever listen to what we have to say?
b) have you not noticed that you frequently rant on and on and on about the same thing?

what a bunch of wannabee know nothing idiots
Coming from you this is a complement :) If you said anything nice then we'd be upset and worried about you.

reinstate my mebership. now
:) :lol: :) :lol: :) :lol: :) :lol: :) :lol: :)

Misodoctakleidist

7th July 2004, 19:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:47 AM
how liberal minded is supporting what is arguably murder? I will argue that abortion is murder. and my argument is a good one, and it is popular. AND it is liberal. it hinges upon defending THE WEAKEST members of society.
How can a feotus be a member of society? Doesn't that imply some kind of social interaction?

apathy maybe

10th July 2004, 02:51

blah blah blah blah a fetus is part of a woman blah blah blah blah no it is not blah blah blah blah yes it is blah blah insult blah blah counter insult blah blah i am right you are wrong blah blah blah dito blah blah blah.

Abortion up until birth? Why not after birth as well?

DaCuBaN

10th July 2004, 03:10

Abortion up until birth? Why not after birth as well?

I'm for upto 54th trimester abortions... who's with me?

Vinny Rafarino

10th July 2004, 04:00

Abortion up until birth? Why not after birth as well?

What a stupid thing to say.

We are talking about aborted pregnancies. Once birth has been given to the child, the woman is no longer pregnant therefore the pregnancy can no longer be aborted.

If you're just going spam the forum nonsense such as "blah blah blah" and such completely absurd comments such as "why not after birth as well" why not just keep quiet?

apathy maybe

12th July 2004, 01:56

the first part of the post is what seems to happen in abortion debates.

The second was a serious question. Why not have the option to kill the child after birth if you allow it to be killed right up until the time of birth? from at least 8 months (maybe earlier) a child can survive outside the womb (with less support as it gets older). It is recognised as a child and has as many feelings etc as a child who is only a day old.

Vinny Rafarino

12th July 2004, 02:25

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12 2004, 01:56 AM
the first part of the post is what seems to happen in abortion debates.

The second was a serious question. Why not have the option to kill the child after birth if you allow it to be killed right up until the time of birth? from at least 8 months (maybe earlier) a child can survive outside the womb (with less support as it gets older). It is recognised as a child and has as many feelings etc as a child who is only a day old.
It is also true that baby does not acheive complete self awareness until after 11-14 months of age.

If you want to try and argue that it should be legal to kill a baby after the moment of birth, go right ahead.

You will not get any support from me however as I find the idea so completely absurd that I am actually shocked anyone would even consider the idea.

guerrillaradio

12th July 2004, 02:53

To those who think abortions shouldn't be available to the indiscreet: how do you feel about using someone's life to punish their parent(s)?? What kinda upbringing do you envisage for the unwanted child who only exists cos of national law?? What are your feelings on coathanger abortions??

Individual

12th July 2004, 02:58

Restrict me.

RedCeltic

12th July 2004, 05:12

I don't mean to change the subject but I couldn't let this one slide..

I am far more liberal minded and far more socialist than all of you "commie" club members put together.

You are quite confused. A LIBERAL and a SOCIALIST are two different political "ISMS". Most of us don't consider liberals to be leftist as they are supporters of capitalism.

As for my position on abortion it is quite simple...

I support a fully funded socialized healthcare plan that includes contraception, the morning after pill, abortion, fully funded family planning clinics etc...

Abortion should be a decision made by the woman and the physician alone. Naturally, counseling should always be provided before the choice is made, ideally with both parents, or with the mother's parents if she is a minor. However a woman of legal age of consent should have the right to make the choice.

I also think that forced stererilization is unethical and should be banned.

In addition, I think there are measures that can be put into effect that will reduce the need (for some) to get an abortion in the first place.

1) more sexual education in schools and in communities.
2) Contraceptives more widely available.
3) Mandatory fully paid maternity (and partly paid paternity) leave.
4) State provided day care facilities for all workers and students.

DaCuBaN

12th July 2004, 05:17

All good RC. Only changes I'd make to be completely satisfied with such a system is the prospect of full paternity leave if the father is the sole parent, for whatever reason and that daycare be unconditional. We can never put enough emphasis on the upbringing of future generations.

I also think that forced stererilization is unethical and should be banned.

*Sigh* :(

RedCeltic

12th July 2004, 05:39

the prospect of full paternity leave if the father is the sole parent

Well yeah naturally.. women do die in childbirth etc... these things do happen.

and that daycare be unconditional

Well I wasn't thinking of the unemployed as I'd like to see full employment... but you get the idea... which is there are ways to lower the amount of abortions needed through the elimination of some struggles and burdens that the capitalist system places on women that may cause a pregnancy to be unwanted.

Vinny Rafarino

12th July 2004, 05:49

Abortion should be a decision made by the woman and the physician alone

Why?

Do you supprt ignoring the fact that the father of the child is also genetically and emotionally linked with that child?

Are you willing deal with the repercussions of what a man may do if he is suffering from severe emotional trauma due to having his genetic bond with the child ignored and the child "murdered"? (because that is how he will see it)

What if the man also suffered from a neurotransmitter disorder that led him to take his own life, or the life of innocent people, due to the additional psychological trauma?

In essence, if the woman wants an abortion and the man does not, why cannot the man take full and legal responsibility for the child after the birth? It is not harming the woman in any way.

We must also consider that with today's medical technologies, the woman will not even have to carry the feotus to full term.

Not allowing the man to be a part of the decision process not only does not make rational sense but is also a violation of the man's individual rights to choose whether or not he can be responsible for the life that he is genetically connected to.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

dopediana

12th July 2004, 06:02

first off, it is the woman's body. the man doesn't have to know if he doesn't know she is pregnant unless there will be medical problems which he will notice. how kind of you to consider the man though, RAF. i think what you're saying is perfectly viable as long as the woman gets to choose what happens to her body. the central issue of abortion as most leftists see it is the effect of the pregnancy/child on the woman's life and health. as long as the procedure is in accordance with how the woman wants her body to come out of the experience the guy can have some involvement with the decision.

Vinny Rafarino

12th July 2004, 06:14

first off, it is the woman's body.

If you want to say that then you can also say that since the feotus is also part of the woman's body and the feotus shares genetic material with the man, the man can also be considered a part of the woman's body.

There of course is no need to attempt that sort of argumant but the message is still the same.

the man doesn't have to know if he doesn't know she is pregnant

That is a violation of the the man's right to genetically reproduce. Keeping the man in "ignorance" is not the right option.

the central issue of abortion as most leftists see it is the effect of the pregnancy/child on the woman's life and health.

That is really another issue completely. I doubt that any man would force a woman to have a child, even to the point where it can be sustained outside her body, if the it could possible affect the health of the woman.

And if they actually did, then obviously we cannot violate the woman's rights and force her to undergo a procedure that may damage or even kill her.

as long as the procedure is in accordance with how the woman wants her body to come out of the experience the guy can have some involvement with the decision. .

As I stated prior, with today's medical technology, the womans body would not be altered any more than the initial pregnancy had already altered it.

The choice is clear.

RedCeltic

12th July 2004, 06:53

I think that when considering the male perspective in reproduction we have to consider what his relationship is with the mother. If the two are married, or are planning this pregnancy in any way than there would naturally be communication between them on this and abortion would be a joint decision or not an option. So that scenario takes care of itself.

As for the unplanned pregnancies by unmarried partners, (the most common candidates for abortion) even there the majority would go to the father and ask for his opinion/advice. There are however those who for whatever reason wish to terminate the unwanted pregnancy without the knowledge of their partner, and should reserve this right when the pregnancy is unplanned.

Now, this would most likely be in the case of a one night stand, and therefore it seems ridiculous for a man who was irresponsible enough to get a girl pregnant to than claim parental rights over something he had hoped would end up as just an ugly stain on the sheets.

Now, as I have said, naturally, before any such operation procedure should occur, there should be some sort of counseling provided and the mother would be strongly urged to have the father attend this.

I think that it would probably be near impossible to force any version of morality on people concerning this issue and the priority concern should of course be (as Alltommorowsparties said) effect of the pregnancy/child on the woman's life and health.

dopediana

12th July 2004, 07:04

redceltic, you pretty much just said what i'd meant to say. dammit it's late and i hate working at the register.

Vinny Rafarino

12th July 2004, 08:29

As for the unplanned pregnancies by unmarried partners, (the most common candidates for abortion) even there the majority would go to the father and ask for his opinion/advice. There are however those who for whatever reason wish to terminate the unwanted pregnancy without the knowledge of their partner, and should reserve this right when the pregnancy is unplanned.

Now, when you say "those who for whatever reason want to terminate the preganancy without the knowledge of the partner" you are not really speaking about "those", you are speaking about women only as there is zero chance a man would have knowledge of a pregnancy prior to the women.

This ideoology prevents the man from being able to choose whether or not they would indeed want the child a subsequently violates his basic human rights.

In matters of a genetic and/or emotional nature , whether or not the situation is "planned" or "unplanned" will have no bearing on how a person will react towrds their genetically bonded offspring.

Plenty of births to overjoyed parents have been the result of an unplanned conception.

Now, this would most likely be in the case of a one night stand, and therefore it seems ridiculous for a man who was irresponsible enough to get a girl pregnant to than claim parental rights over something he had hoped would end up as just an ugly stain on the sheets.

How does a one night stand have any bearing over the possible emotional and obvious biological connection between a parent and child?

The method of conception is not a "tell tale sign" of how the man or woman may feel about the child.

What you are doing is pigeonholing every possible emotional response to certain stimuli into one psychological category based on your own personal feelings rather than in accordance to the numerous possible emotional reactions that would enevitably occur.

This type of thinking is what is irresponsible.

Now, as I have said, naturally, before any such operation procedure should occur, there should be some sort of counseling provided and the mother would be strongly urged to have the father attend this.

Not only should it be "strongly urged" but it should be illegal not to.

priority concern should of course be (as Alltommorowsparties said) effect of the pregnancy/child on the woman's life and health.

Of course, but that is not the issue.

Why is it that in some cases of women's rights the natural tendency is to psychologically find ways to limit rights of males?

As far as I remember, communism promotes progression, not regression.

Karo de Perro

12th July 2004, 08:49

Abortion is something that should only be practiced in cases of fetal innormalities or wherein the mothers life is endangered,also in cases of rape and incest abortion should be a viable option.

As for all these 'unwanted' pregnancies,this is a horrible statement of the human condition,there is absolutely no excuse for this phenomena when there is so many preventive means at our disposal ... condoms,early withdrawals,etc.

Its also a damn shame that women catch the brunt of all the bullshit criticisms leaving all these bastard free-pokers unscathed by the same.

I say make the piss-tolters carry equal responsibility,simply DNA the offspring and track down the rabbit and put him to bustin rocks for rockin his nuts,or else castrate the asshole so he dont screw up the lives of other girls as well.

If a fella wants to play the man in the sack then he should be made into a man when his seed takes root ... when one plants wild oats they need to be prepared to work the fields as well.

Kobbot 401

12th July 2004, 19:11

It is a womans right to have or not have a child.

The Morman church, LDS (the people who come to your door in white dress shirts, black pants, ties, and black over coat, and try to give you a Book of Morman. Thouse people.) are strongly aginst abortions, unless the child was conseved though incest, rape, or something similer.

gummo

12th July 2004, 20:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:54 PM
I don't see why anyone cares how many abortions someone has, why are some of you so eager to keep abortion rates low?
I love the way most liberals will jump off of their moral high horse when it comes to killing unborn children.

Drunks and drug addicts deserve food and shelter because it's not their fault.

Wellfare broads deserve more money because it's not their fault.

Students deserve free education because it's not their fault.

It's not the unborn childs fault that his/her mother/father are moral deadbeats that can't take responsibility of their own actions. A baby dies as the result of a guy and a girl wanting to get their rocks off. What is more selfish than that?

DaCuBaN

12th July 2004, 20:07

I don't know man.... these things are all deserved, there simply needs to be a level of chastisement when the systems are abused. 3-strikes and your out sounds good to me.

gummo

12th July 2004, 20:17

I do not support large government control. I think abortion is wrong but I don't think that it is the governments place to come in and tell people that they cannot do it.

This should be a moral issue, not a goverment issue. The liberal population has done an excellent job at taking the focus off of the real atrocity, which is the killing of a child, and diverted the attention to personal rights. Personal rights is something that most Americans feel strongly about and in this situation is overshadows the real issue.

Killing an unborn baby is not a good thing.

DaCuBaN

12th July 2004, 20:20

Christ, it's living tissue nonetheless. Follow the veggie link in my sig and enjoy ;)

gummo

12th July 2004, 20:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:20 PM
Christ, it's living tissue nonetheless. Follow the veggie link in my sig and enjoy ;)
I guess I don't look at it as what it is but what it has the potential to be. Those groups of cells will be a living human being one day.

DaCuBaN

12th July 2004, 20:28

...and a living human being is just more tissues; the 'rights of man' as we see them are purely an intellectual construct. Whilst they need protected, they also need defined and redefined on a never ending basis to keep up with the movement of society, and to prevent 'moralism' getting in the way of technologies that have the potential - or the actuality - to do great things.

gummo

12th July 2004, 20:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:28 PM
...and a living human being is just more tissues; the 'rights of man' as we see them are purely an intellectual construct. Whilst they need protected, they also need defined and redefined on a never ending basis to keep up with the movement of society, and to prevent 'moralism' getting in the way of technologies that have the potential - or the actuality - to do great things.
Hopefully, in the future, technology will progess in a way that supports life instead of occassionally needing to destroy it.

synthesis

12th July 2004, 21:41

Gummo, how could you oppose abortion rights and yet accept anything like anti-bacterial or anti-viral medication? They are both 'life' to the same degree.

gummo

13th July 2004, 02:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:41 PM
Gummo, how could you oppose abortion rights and yet accept anything like anti-bacterial or anti-viral medication? They are both 'life' to the same degree.
Apples and oranges anyone?

synthesis

13th July 2004, 02:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 07:06 PM
Apples and oranges anyone?
this is no time to being hungry

we are in debait!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th July 2004, 04:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:17 PM
Killing an unborn baby is not a good thing.
You're an idiot if you think a bunch of cells that can't survive outside the womb is a child.

kami888

13th July 2004, 04:11

apples and oranges anyone?
this is no time to being hungry
I think he meant something else :D

I personally consider an infant to be a "bunch of cells" until the age of 5 approx.

But in general, if 90 years old person doesn't know that earth rotates around the sun, he is a bunch of cells :D

gummo

14th July 2004, 13:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:11 AM
this is no time to being hungry
I think he meant something else :D

I personally consider an infant to be a "bunch of cells" until the age of 5 approx.

But in general, if 90 years old person doesn't know that earth rotates around the sun, he is a bunch of cells :D [/quote]
Are you saying that it is ok to 'abort' a child until the age of '5 or so'?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

14th July 2004, 15:33

Hey everybody, its been awhile since I've been to the forums, but since you've all have seem to have forgotten my views on abortion, I'll freshen you up a bit.

A woman has the ability to shirk any responsibilty to a child if she at all desires. She can always opt for an abortion no matter what, however, a man has no way of getting out of any responsiblity. If a woman gives birth to that man's child, then he is responsible for it and there is nothing he can do. You all claim that its just a bit of sperm, or something along those lines to argue that a man should have no rights for his child, but if that truely is just a "little bit of sperm" then why is should it be illegal for a man to ditch any responsibilty to their son? The fact of the matter is, is that is also the father's child/fetus and he should have rights to it too.

Heres my proposal- Abortion should be 100% legal, but require the mother AND the father's consent. (except in cases of rape or endangerment to the mother's life)

kami888

14th July 2004, 22:22

Are you saying that it is ok to 'abort' a child until the age of '5 or so'?

I know it might sound kind of cruel, but yes. If I have been killed before 5 years old i would at least never know that my motherland collapsed.

though, there should be some limit or the population will drop really fast.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

14th July 2004, 22:44

Lol after reading the entire thread it seems Comrade RAF has sufficiently argued my idea for me!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th July 2004, 23:08

I'm sorry, but I don't see why the male should have ANY bearing on the woman's decision to abort; seriously, all the male had to do was fuck (Real hard work I guess :rolleyes: )

And don't give me that shit about the man's right to reproduce. If someone's "right" puts some undeserving person in pain or impinges upon their own freedoms, then it is not a right.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

15th July 2004, 02:38

Perhaps if the woman hated the idea of having a baby so much, then perhaps she should take a little responsibility and not fuck. A man should have the bearing because it is his child, and if things are really as you say, that all the man had to do was fuck, then why should he be forced to take any responsibility at all for that child that he has no rights over, after all, it is as you say, the woman's body right?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th July 2004, 03:00

Perhaps if the woman hated the idea of having a baby so much, then perhaps she should take a little responsibility and not fuck.

Or maybe she could stop dating filthy chauvinist pigs.

A man should have the bearing because it is his child,

Please. Just because a small amount of his genetic material is present in the foetus does not entitle the male to force the woman to suffer.

and if things are really as you say, that all the man had to do was fuck, then why should he be forced to take any responsibility at all for that child that he has no rights over, after all, it is as you say, the woman's body right?

You are confusing 'child' and 'foetus'. A 'foetus' is a non-human organism dependant on the female for survival, and is therefore a part of the woman's body do with as she feels fit.
A ''child" is a physically independant human organism that forms part of the society it resides in, and is therefore the responsibility of the entire community.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

15th July 2004, 05:35

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th July 2004, 06:32

If thats the way you feel NoXion, then why should the man have to be responsible for that being that is just a "tiny bit of his genetic material"? If a small amount of genetic material does not entitle the man to any rights, then why should it necessitate any commitment or any responsibility to the fetus should the mother choose to keep it? Do you understand what I am pointing out? You can't just say that all men are scum and they should have no rights to "their fetus" but they should have to be responsible should the mother and only the mother choose to keep it.

What is your point? If the woman decides to keep the foetus then the male has a responsibility not to the foetus but to the woman, whom the male has put into that condition by the act of fertilising her.
You don't run away from people you have crippled (Temporarily or otherwise)

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

15th July 2004, 06:58

But no, the woman crippled herself. Its just a few bits of DNA, she could have gotten an abortion after all right? The woman and only the woman made the decision to have the child but its not ok for the woman to bear the responsibility for even that decision she made entirely on her own? Why should the man have to have any responsibilty to the woman at all in that situation because of the woman's decision? You never ask the woman to have any responsibilty for a man, so then what give you the right to tell a man he has to be responsible not only for a woman, but he needs to be held accountable for the decisions she makes as well?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th July 2004, 07:31

Why should the man have to have any responsibilty to the woman at all in that situation because of the woman's decision?

Because surely as a loving partner he will stay by her side during a difficult time (Pregnancy) and not run off so she has to look after herself or find someone who actually gives a shit.

Bottom line is MM, you are a sexist pig who thinks that if a man is not allowed to control a woman's body, then fuck 'em, the stupid sluts :angry:

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

15th July 2004, 12:49

But this loving partner must be completely subservent to the what the woman wants? The husband has to be supportive and stay there for the woman, but if for whatever reason the woman decides she doesn't want the child, no matter what the husband thinks, too fuckin bad? If you seriously think that way, then there is no use trying to reason with you. I happen to be a feminist myself, but that does not mean you have to think that all men are the devil and you have to support legislation restricting their rights at every opportunity.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th July 2004, 14:15

But this loving partner must be completely subservent to the what the woman wants?

Makes a refreshing change to all the patriarchy we've been experiencing the past few millennia, eh? =D

The husband has to be supportive and stay there for the woman, but if for whatever reason the woman decides she doesn't want the child, no matter what the husband thinks, too fuckin bad?

Yep.

If you seriously think that way, then there is no use trying to reason with you.

And you a patriarchial fuckwit who cannot be reasoned with.

I happen to be a feminist myself,

NO FUCKING WAY are you a feminist.

but that does not mean you have to think that all men are the devil and you have to support legislation restricting their rights at every opportunity.

I do not think men are 'the devil' I happen to be one myself, happily one who isn't so fucking puffed up and and egotistical that demand control over the bodies of others.

Pregnancy, childbirth and pregnancy are not about 'rights' they are about 'responsibilities' People are not property over which you have rights.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

15th July 2004, 15:37

Makes a refreshing change to all the patriarchy we've been experiencing the past few millennia, eh?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And you a patriarchial fuckwit who cannot be reasoned with.

No, I am reasonable.

NO FUCKING WAY are you a feminist.

I understand that women have been discriminated throughout much of history and it continues today. I firmly believe that men and women are equal and that any form of discrimination, for or against them, is wrong.

Pregnancy, childbirth and pregnancy are not about 'rights' they are about 'responsibilities'.

Yes, they are are SHARED responsibilities.

Might I also ask if you also think that the woman should always be given total custody of the child after it is born?

I do not think men are 'the devil' I happen to be one myself, happily one who isn't so fucking puffed up and and egotistical that demand control over the bodies of others.

And appearantly you are also one who also doesn't care for his own chidren or the rights of fathers who do.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th July 2004, 06:35

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And pithy phrases don't amount to shit.
Do you seriously think that if men started acting more like gentlemen toward women during pregnancy and child raising and less like self-serving assholes it'll equate to reversal of gender inequality?
I notice that you slam women with unwanted pregnancies for being '*****es' and 'sluts' but you don't slam deadbeat fathers for being 'dickheads' and 'cowards'.
Your true colours shine through.

I understand that women have been discriminated throughout much of history and it continues today. I firmly believe that men and women are equal and that any form of discrimination, for or against them, is wrong.

Your attitude doesn't say so.

Might I also ask if you also think that the woman should always be given total custody of the child after it is born?

I don't think 'custody' should be given to either (As if the young human is some sort of object!) I think the child should be raised by the community and not by a traditional family.

And appearantly you are also one who also doesn't care for his own chidren or the rights of fathers who do.

There you go again, with the assumption that just because a child has some of your genes it somehow 'belongs' to you.
It's only 'yours' in the sense that you sired him or her.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

17th July 2004, 20:08

And pithy phrases don't amount to shit.
Do you seriously think that if men started acting more like gentlemen toward women during pregnancy and child raising and less like self-serving assholes it'll equate to reversal of gender inequality?
I notice that you slam women with unwanted pregnancies for being '*****es' and 'sluts' but you don't slam deadbeat fathers for being 'dickheads' and 'cowards'.
Your true colours shine through.

I don't think its any more acceptable for a dad to be a deadbeat then it is for a woman to abort a wanted child.

Your attitude doesn't say so.

My attitide can say things totally contradictory to what I am saying?

I don't think 'custody' should be given to either (As if the young human is some sort of object!) I think the child should be raised by the community and not by a traditional family.

You do understand the bond between a parent and their children right? In your world, how big of a role wouild the parents play in the lives of their children? Would babies even have the right to stay with their parents? If the parents had no role in the lives of their children, then wouldn't any form of responsibility on behalf of the father ultimately be a moot point?

There you go again, with the assumption that just because a child has some of your genes it somehow 'belongs' to you.
It's only 'yours' in the sense that you sired him or her.

I do not think a child literally belongs to a person in the sence that they are an object, but I believe that people have a right to start a family, and an unborn child is a member of the family, and ultimately, it should be the family's decision as to should the baby be kept, given up for adoption, placed in the care of the state, or aborted.

Vinny Rafarino

18th July 2004, 03:21

I'm sorry, but I don't see why the male should have ANY bearing on the woman's decision to abort; seriously, all the male had to do was fuck (Real hard work I guess )

Are you saying that because of the past sins of the males of the human species, that the feelings and rights of males can be subsequently ignored?

Are you saying that all men have no psychological bond with their offspring?

Are you saying that during sex, the woman somehow does more than the man, does not also "fuck real hard", and somehow "enjoys the process less" than the male?

Does that mean that you feel that women only have sex to reproduce while men only have sex to satisfy their selfsh desires to attain orgasm?

And don't give me that shit about the man's right to reproduce. If someone's "right" puts some undeserving person in pain or impinges upon their own freedoms, then it is not a right.

By that rationale then no one should ever reproduce. Do you feel that no one should ever reproduce comrade? You should if you adhere to this train of thought.

Do you feel that women who want to give birth somehow "deserve" the pain?

Please. Just because a small amount of his genetic material is present in the foetus does not entitle the male to force the woman to suffer.

You do realise that with today's medical technology, it is easy to make giving birth of a child at the moment it can be incubated outside of her body completely painless and free from "suffering".

Now that you know that, it would not be rational for you to keep hold to your rhetoric, since it relies solely on the "suffering" of the woman.

So it's fair to say that since "suffering" is eliminated, so is your argument yes?

whom the male has put into that condition by the act of fertilising her.

Are you saying that the woman does not hold any responsibility for conception, and that it is the sole responsibilty of the "man that put her in that condition"?

That's not a very feminist outlook. Actually it's completely misogynistic.

If you do believe that conception is the sole responsibility of the male, and the woman is just a "helpless victim" then rational thought and logic makes the entire feotus the sole responsibility of the male, making the "choice" of the woman completely irrelevant.

Do you want to change your tune now?

Because surely as a loving partner he will stay by her side during a difficult time (Pregnancy) and not run off so she has to look after herself or find someone who actually gives a shit.

Since we are arguing about why the "partner" should be given the same choice as the woman, and a man who has "run off" is not considered to be a partner, I fail to see how your argumant has any validity at all.

If a man is not around to make a decision then the woman will have the right to make it solely by herself.

We are referring to men that do not "run off" on their mates.

Get it?

NO FUCKING WAY are you a feminist.

Considering some of your own misogynistic viewpoints, it's safe to say that neither are you.

People are not property over which you have rights.

Since we are not talking about "people" and are talking about material that exists inside of people (of which you have already stated you believe is absolutely notto be considered a "person") I fail to see hoe you have made this relevant in your own mind.

You state that the feotus is the sole property of the woman, yet precisely half of that material is "owned" by the male.

Are you saying that the male automatically "gives up" his right to extract that property because he does not biologically have the capability to bear the child himself?

That my friend is standard misanthropy.

So it seems you have both misogynistic and misanthropic ideas. You are very confused.

I don't think 'custody' should be given to either (As if the young human is some sort of object!) I think the child should be raised by the community and not by a traditional family.

Good luck!

As this ideology goes against genetic instinct, and is for the most part rather silly, I don't see it happening, ever.

I would indeed love to see someone try it though; it would be a nice case study on how fast two parents can dismember a person with their bare hands.

There you go again, with the assumption that just because a child has some of your genes it somehow 'belongs' to you.

If you hold to that argument you must also believe that the feotus does not "belong" to the woman as the child contains the same amount of her genetic material as the males.

She must be then considered to be a simple "delivery device" for the feotus.

If that's true, then you should also believe that abortions should be completely illegal in all cases.

You're all over the place man.

I don't think you have entirely thought this through NoXion. You have simply jumped on the "feminist bandwagon" without even knowing what it's about.

revolutionindia

18th July 2004, 04:23

Most of you seem to be unaware of the law of unintended consequences

In India and China almost 100 million female feuteses have been
aborted as a result of preference for male child.(I think in the last 10 years ,not sure)

In india the sex ratio in some parts is as low as 700 females to 1000 males

There is even a town where there are no female children

What do you all have to say about this?

All those who blindly agree with abortion are just fools whose
understanding of this world does not extend beyond the four walls of
their room.

You all are answerable to those 100million girl childs who never lived to see the light of this world because of your apathy,ignorence and support to abortion.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

18th July 2004, 05:58

In India and China almost 100 million female feuteses have been aborted as a result of preference for male child.(I think in the last 10 years ,not sure)

Countries like India and China are utterly incapable of building facilities for the state to raise 100 million children. You'd think common sence would kick in sometime.

In india the sex ratio in some parts is as low as 700 females to 1000 males

Looks like the odds are against you then mate.

There is even a town where there are no female children

That must be one really gay town...

All those who blindly agree with abortion are just fools whose
understanding of this world does not extend beyond the four walls of
their room.

Gee, what was I thinking all this time?

You all are answerable to those 100million girl childs who never lived to see the light of this world because of your apathy,ignorence and support to abortion.

Why don't you worry about feeding the people that live there now before you make more of them...

revolutionindia

18th July 2004, 06:14

You idiot your idiocracy reaches new highs

When 100 milion female feutesses were aobrted it does not mena the population reduced by 100 million .
These women aborted so that they could have a male child.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

18th July 2004, 06:21

Don't like the odds being stacked against you? I'm sure you'll find someone sooner or later.

revolutionindia

18th July 2004, 06:23

No , I want you and only you
Nothing else will do

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

18th July 2004, 09:35

Comrade_RAF, you missed my point. I was trying to say that if a women consents to conception, changes her mind and has an abortion the male shouldn't get in the way. I also not your comment on "genetic instinct" is rather revealing; it smacks of the 'human nature' argument.

revolutionindia

Most of you seem to be unaware of the law of unintended consequences

In India and China almost 100 million female feuteses have been
aborted as a result of preference for male child.(I think in the last 10 years ,not sure)

In india the sex ratio in some parts is as low as 700 females to 1000 males

There is even a town where there are no female children

What do you all have to say about this?

I think it says a lot about Indian and Chinese social practices - in both cases a male child should by tradition look after his parents when they are older.

Maybe if they stopped having such old-fashioned social practices, then they wouldn't have to have so many abortions?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

18th July 2004, 13:53

O yeah, I forgot to point this out. How many people in China and India do you think can afford an ultrasound to tell if their child is a male or a female? You many do you think can go and get an abortion when they do not even have access to even basic health care? You see, they do not abort fetuses because of their gender, they murder them after they are born. It's been going on for thousands of years, it is illegal, and not all the legislation in the world can change that until there is more is done for these people.

No , I want you and only you
Nothing else will do

You and The Anarchist Tension might need to talk...

revolutionindia

18th July 2004, 15:26

Midnight marauder read these links carefully and if you don't understand what is written try reading it out loud that's what I used to do in school when I was a kid
and did not understand something

Pre -natal tests in India (http://www.infochangeindia.org/WomenIstory.jsp?recordno=227&storyofchangev=WomenIstory.jsp§ion_idv=1)

*EDIT* The link does not seem to be working and I think Midnight marauder is so
dumb he could not possibily be able to click on it and find out by himself so I have cut and pasted it here

SAVING THE GIRL CHILD

A brief history of the campaign against sex selective abortion in India

In the early-1980s, a group of women’s and health organisations in Mumbai decided to confront the medical profession’s unethical promotion of prenatal sex detection and sex selective abortion. Diagnostic centres had mushroomed even in rural areas, offering amniocentesis and other methods for a few hundred rupees, to be followed by an abortion if the foetus was of the ‘undesired’ sex. Advertisements in the local trains beckoned: “Spend a few hundred rupees today, save lakhs of rupees in dowry for the future.” Female infanticide was not only being replaced by sex selective abortion; those who may have hesitated to kill a female infant were less reluctant when it came to a medical termination of pregnancy.

There was some opposition to the campaign’s use of the expression ‘female foeticide’ to describe the extermination of the female of the species. Some felt that this equated abortion with murder. Others felt this fear was unrealistic; the western debate on abortion did not apply in the Indian context, where women had never had to fight for the right to abortion. The government had legalised abortion for its own ends -- the family planning programme.

In addition to a public campaign to discourage the use of sex selection, the Forum Against Sex Determination and Sex Pre-selection (referring to sperm separation techniques used with artificial insemination) also fought for legislation to restrict the use of prenatal diagnostic techniques to registered centres, and only when medically indicated. The Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act was passed in Maharashtra in the late-1980s, and at the central level in 1994.

Some people felt the law would drive the practice underground; what was needed was social education to promote the value of the girl-child so that people would not seek such 'solutions'. The campaign responded that it was working with public education, but that a law would be of critical value as well.

In fact, the law was observed more in the breach. Doctors protected themselves by recording various indications which necessitated the diagnostic technique. And with more advanced sonography machines, even this requirement could be ignored. According to . P Phavalam, convener of the Campaign Against Sex Selective Abortion, a survey in villages in the southern state of Tamil Nadu found the sex ratio further skewed from the 1991 census.

It was only in 2000 that the Indian Medical Association got involved in the campaign and sent out letters to all its branches asking that they prevent their members from breaking the law.

In April 2001, the Medical Council of India decided to address sex selective abortion -- but felt constrained by the fact that its code of ethics did not specifically identify the practice. Thus, its response was to send a proposal to the central government, seeking an amendment in the code of ethics describing prenatal sex determination and sex selective abortion as unethical practices. Once the proposal gets formal approval, medical practitioners performing the technique can be prosecuted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

By 2001, the census showed a decline in the number of girls in the 0-6-year-old age group -- from 962 girls per 1,000 boys in 1981, to 945 girls per 1,000 boys in 1991, to 927 girls per 1,000 boys in 2001. The ratio of girls to boys is worse in affluent regions of Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu.

In 2001, health activist Sabu George, the Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) and Mahila Sarvangeen Utkarsh Mandal (MASUM) filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court, contending that there was an alarming drop in the sex ratio due to the unchecked practice of determining foetal sex, which invariably resulted in the abortion of female foetuses.

The petition stated that legislation banning sex selection -- enacted in 1994 and in operation from 1996 -- had not been enforced. “In addition to the general disinterest on the part of various governance bodies to implement the Act, the family planning programmes’ insistence on the small family norm and the son preference bias added pressure on families to look at sex selection as a means for desired family composition.”

Among the observations made: the 2001 Census report showed an alarming fall in Punjab’s sex ratio. Not a single pre-natal diagnostic centre had been registered in the state, though it was common knowledge that these centres had mushroomed in small towns. The petition also referred to the use of pre-natal genetic diagnosis used with assisted reproductive technologies for ‘pre-conception sex selection’.

On May 4, 2001, the Supreme Court of India asked the central and state governments to sincerely implement the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, and to launch a vigorous media campaign against related unethical practices. A central supervisory board was to issue directions to all states and union territories to furnish quarterly reports on the Act's implementation.

The court asked that the central supervisory board recommend to the government possible amendments taking into account emerging medical technologies.

You and The Anarchist Tension might need to talk...

Also TAT wants you and only you

We will all learn to share,what little we all have-That is you
Sharing is caring :)

Vinny Rafarino

18th July 2004, 17:19

Comrade_RAF, you missed my point

Hardly, your points are very clear.

was trying to say that if a women consents to conception, changes her mind and has an abortion the male shouldn't get in the way

Since you did not respond to any of my questions, we will have to assume that they must have got you thinking....take your time.

Now, are you trying to say that the "whims" of the woman are somehow more important than the "whims" of a man? As we have already concluded that the male has the sames rights to extract his property from the female as she does and unless you agree that your ideology is simple misanthropy, we must now consider options.

Now, unless you are a psycopath that thinks cutting the baby in half after birth is a viable option, then we have only one alternative;

If the woman wants an abortion and the man does not, too fucking bad for her. She will carry that child until the time that it can be removed from her body and incubated outside the womb.

Once the child is removed she will legally sign away all of her obligations and responsibility of that child to the father and will go on her way. Any attempt to have an abortion without the consent of the male will be considered a criminal act.

I also not your comment on "genetic instinct" is rather revealing; it smacks of the 'human nature' argument.

You've been listening to RS too long without even thinking on your own. It "smacks" of the "human nature" argument because HUMAN NATURE EXISTS.

Only a fool would suggest that there are no genetic instictual behaviours in human beings.

Now, before you get ahead of yourself, there is no such gene as a greed gene[B] so don't rabbit on about that. The human genome does however have genes that control such instincts as procreation, comfort, eating, survival, etc.

RS and I ahve discussed the subject at length many times yet I don't remember you being involved. Why is that?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th July 2004, 01:54

Now, are you trying to say that the "whims" of the woman are somehow more important than the "whims" of a man?

Only when it comes to her body, of which the foetus is a part of.

As we have already concluded that the male has the sames rights to extract his property from the female as she does and unless you agree that your ideology is simple misanthropy, we must now consider options.

The female is not his property! :angry: it's as simple as that!

If the woman wants an abortion and the man does not, too fucking bad for her. She will carry that child until the time that it can be removed from her body and incubated outside the womb.
Bolding mine.

That's a perfectly misogynist outlook. The woman wants an abortion; the man, who is totally unaffected by her condition, says no because his 'instincts' (Which can be overridden by the way - that's one of the things which seperate us from animals) tell him he 'must' have a baby with this woman :rolleyes:

Any attempt to have an abortion without the consent of the male will be considered a criminal act.

Punishment for being female? That's absolutely disgusting.

You've been listening to RS too long without even thinking on your own. It "smacks" of the "human nature" argument because HUMAN NATURE EXISTS.

Yes, just as 'morality' exists; it is currently human nature to be as greedy and opportunistic as possible, as it was 'immoral' to eat meat on a Friday.
What you call 'human nature' changes to fit material conditions.

The human genome does however have genes that control such instincts as procreation, comfort, eating, survival, etc.

Instincts that humans, unlike animals, can override at any time. Do you wish to lower ourselves to the level of animals RAF?

Vinny Rafarino

20th July 2004, 21:19

Only when it comes to her body, of which the foetus is a part of.

And the feotus is part of the male's body in addition to the female's. You yourself have applied the idea of property here.

You can't have it both ways.

The female is not his property! it's as simple as that!

I don't believe anyone said the female was property. You're simply trying to move the converstion into another direction so you don't have to answer the previous questions.

Read the quote again.

As we have already concluded that the male has the sames rights to extract his property from the female as she does and unless you agree that your ideology is simple misanthropy, we must now consider options.

By your own admission, you admit freely that the feotus is "property". Now, since half of the feotus is the property of the male, then he has every right to extract said property.

You are confused.

That's a perfectly misogynist outlook.

The "outlook" is no different from your misanthopic outlook of "too fucking bad for HIM!

Which can be overridden by the way

Some can be "overridden" by severe mental and psychological trauma, some can not.

Does this mean that you now agree that there are certain aspects of human nature that are genetic? If you agree than these things can be "overridden" than you must, otherwise there would have been nothing to "override" would there?

If you are going to try and take a stand on a viewpoint, try not to flip-flop so much.

says no because his 'instincts' tell him he 'must' have a baby with this woman

Are you saing that instinctual behaviour that triggers an emotonal (and very real) reaction in a human being are to be ignored?

If so, then what you are saying is that you feel that the emotions of a man are not as important as those of the woman and can be subsequently ignored.

Once again, you are confused.

Punishment for being female? That's absolutely disgusting.

Nice try but my statement in no way means "punishment for being female". You are reaching for straws that only exist in fantasyland here.

it is currently human nature to be as greedy and opportunistic as possible

No it isn't. You are confused on what human nature is.

In addition, you have now gone back on your earlier stance that "human nature does not exist". If you think it doesn't then how could the human race possibly have a "current human nature" as you now suggest?

More confusion.

What you call 'human nature' changes to fit material conditions

I'm sorry but this statement is not only completely nonsensical but it also violate every thing we have learned about human psychology and neurology.

Instincts that humans, unlike animals, can override at any time. Do you wish to lower ourselves to the level of animals RAF?

The human species cannot "override" their genetic instinces at "any time" as you suggest.

Instincts that can be "overridden" are done so after experiencing extreme psychological and emotional trauma.

Once again you have not answered the majority of my questions to you?

Why is that?

Guest1

20th July 2004, 23:37

By the way, to all parties involved:

Misanthropy is the hatred of people.
Misogyny is the hatred of women.
Misandry is the hatred of men.

Carry on now.

Vinny Rafarino

21st July 2004, 00:03

You are correct.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Guest1

21st July 2004, 01:04

Welcome :)

Nickademus

21st July 2004, 05:32

i'm going to admit that i haven't read this entire thread.... that would take hours and hours.... but it appears as though the discussion is about whether men should be able to force a woman to carry a child to term even if she wants an abortion and the man doesn't.

while its true that there are male aspects and female aspects embodied inthe foetus, the point is that the abortion is done to the woman's body.... and ultimately it is a woman's choice what she wants to do to her body. i'm sure that if the situation was turned over and men were the ones who give birth that men would be screaming that women couldn't dictate whether or not they carry the foetus to term.

it is ultimately about the woman's choice to do with her body as she chooses.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

21st July 2004, 17:06

And the feotus is part of the male's body in addition to the female's. You yourself have applied the idea of property here.

The foetus is not part of the male's body, it not attatched to him or getting nourishment from him in any manner, nor does it's status and development affect him physically.
Now that I've established that the foetus is wholly part of the female's body, she can do what she damn well pleases because it affects her and her only.
True the male might be emotionally hurt, but he should try to convince (with words not blows) her course of action is incorrect, but the male should not be able to use a court of law to force the female to do what he wants.

I don't believe anyone said the female was property. You're simply trying to move the converstion into another direction so you don't have to answer the previous questions.

Read the quote again.

As we have already concluded that the male has the sames rights to extract his property from the female as she does and unless you agree that your ideology is simple misanthropy, we must now consider options.

By your own admission, you admit freely that the feotus is "property". Now, since half of the feotus is the property of the male, then he has every right to extract said property.

You are confused.

As I said, the foetus is not part of the man's body, so the foetus is entirely a part of the female's body, and so therefore only she can make decisions about the foetus. Plus you don't have to own something to make decisions about it.

The "outlook" is no different from your misanthopic outlook of "too fucking bad for HIM!

All the male has to do if he fails to convince her that abortion is not the way to go is go find someone else to have a baby with.
In your case, the woman is stuck with a pregnancy for 4-6 weeks.

Your outlook is worse.

Some can be "overridden" by severe mental and psychological trauma, some can not.

Every time I stay up late to do some reading, I am overriding my instinct to sleep.
Every time I pass by a shop and am hungry but have no money, I am overriding my instinct to eat, although it could be easily satisfied if I stole, I chose to override my instincts because they would get me into trouble.

Reason always beats instinct.

Does this mean that you now agree that there are certain aspects of human nature that are genetic? If you agree than these things can be "overridden" than you must, otherwise there would have been nothing to "override" would there?

Again you are confusing 'human nature' and 'instincts'.
'Instincts' such as the desire to eat when hungry, to sleep when tired etc, are genetic, but can be overridden.
'Human Nature' such as the desire to own property, to to rule and be ruled, etc, do not exist and are constantly overridden.
The key difference between Human Nature and Instincts is physical effects.
If you do not eat you begin to waste away, and if you stay awake too long, you die.
You will not waste away or die if a woman pregnant by you decides not to carry the pregnancy to term. Any emotional needs can be fulfilled by someone else.

Are you saing that instinctual behaviour that triggers an emotonal (and very real) reaction in a human being are to be ignored?

If so, then what you are saying is that you feel that the emotions of a man are not as important as those of the woman and can be subsequently ignored.

No, but they can be fulfilled by someone else. You cannot pass a pregnancy on to another woman, but a man can choose to mate with someone else.

Nice try but my statement in no way means "punishment for being female". You are reaching for straws that only exist in fantasyland here.

Currently only females can get pregnant, and until otherwise any punishment for abortion under any circumstances is discrimination, pure and simple.

No it isn't. You are confused on what human nature is.

What is human nature then? what determines it?

In addition, you have now gone back on your earlier stance that "human nature does not exist". If you think it doesn't then how could the human race possibly have a "current human nature" as you now suggest?

I'm saying that 'human nature' does not exist as a timeless construct that does not change irrespective of material conditions. I am saying that 'human nature' is a social construct designed to enforce conformity.

I'm sorry but this statement is not only completely nonsensical but it also violate every thing we have learned about human psychology and neurology.

Really? how?

The human species cannot "override" their genetic instinces at "any time" as you suggest.

Yes they can, I gave you some examples.

DaCuBaN

21st July 2004, 17:25

Humans aren't especially good at overriding their instincts... as you grow older you develop better 'floodbarriers' to control them, but they are still very much a driving force in your life. Frankly though, I'm wondering where you are attaching desire to own property to human instinct... I've always perceived it to be purely survival instinct. Everything else seems to be a societal construct, and hence cannot be 'instinct' or 'nature' - it is nurtured in the specific individuals.

Much like the aforementioned instinctual 'control mechanisms'.

the foetus is not part of the man's body, so the foetus is entirely a part of the female's body

No, it's a parasite on the female body. Willing or otherwise, this fact does not change.

The foetus is not part of the male's body, it not attatched to him or getting nourishment from him in any manner, nor does it's status and development affect him physically

You'd be surprised.

Vinny Rafarino

21st July 2004, 20:49

about whether men should be able to force a woman to carry a child to term even if she wants an abortion and the man doesn't.

The absolute irrationality of the members of this board is astounding. I certainly enjoyed your use if the word "force".

Tell you what, what would you do in the case that the man wanted an abortion but the woman did not?

Would you FORCE that man to be a father of a child he did not want?

Don't even bother to answer. It appears the deeper in the shit people get the more they want to kick their legs.

Now that I've established that the foetus is wholly part of the female's body, she can do what she damn well pleases because it affects her and her only.

The only thing you have established is a completely irrational and ignorant viewpoint towards the male's right to have children.

True the male might be emotionally hurt, but he should try to convince (with words not blows) her course of action is incorrect, but the male should not be able to use a court of law to force the female to do what he wants.

"With words not blows"? What the hell are you on? This is a discussion about human rights; not a discussion about some fantastic "agenda" for men to "force" women to do their bidding by allowing them to keep their child.

Your ignorance is amazing.

As I said, the foetus is not part of the man's body, so the foetus is entirely a part of the female's body, and so therefore only she can make decisions about the foetus. Plus you don't have to own something to make decisions about it.

Sorry mate, perhaps this would be the reality in fantasyland but back here on earth this statement has about as much footing in reality as Indiana Jones has walking on quick sand.

We have already covered this issue in the last posts that you have failed to address. If you are going to keep doing this over and over then please just stop responding; it's boring.

Your outlook is worse

:lol:

Every time I stay up late to do some reading, I am overriding my instinct to sleep.
Every time I pass by a shop and am hungry but have no money, I am overriding my instinct to eat, although it could be easily satisfied if I stole, I chose to override my instincts because they would get me into trouble.

Reason always beats instinct.

You are VERY CONFUSED about what is and what is not an instinct. These descriptions do not even remotely apply.

There is no such thing as an "instinct to eat"; that is what is called a biological function, not a genetic behaviour.

Now, hunting for the food would be an instinct.

In addition, sleep is also a biological function and not an instinct.

Try again.

Again you are confusing 'human nature' and 'instincts'.
'Instincts' such as the desire to eat when hungry, to sleep when tired etc, are genetic, but can be overridden.
'Human Nature' such as the desire to own property, to to rule and be ruled, etc, do not exist and are constantly overridden.

Wrong. I already covered this.

No, but they can be fulfilled by someone else. You cannot pass a pregnancy on to another woman, but a man can choose to mate with someone else.

Wrong.

Already covered in the previous posts. Remember, the ones you have yet to address?

Currently only females can get pregnant, and until otherwise any punishment for abortion under any circumstances is discrimination, pure and simple.

:lol:

What is human nature then? what determines it?

Instinctual genetic behaviour patterns.

It is determined by your genes.

saying that 'human nature' does not exist as a timeless construct that does not change irrespective of material conditions. I am saying that 'human nature' is a social construct designed to enforce conformity

This does not even make sense.

Really? how?

Because there is no empirical evidence now, or ever, that will support your unique perception of human nature.

Yes they can, I gave you some examples

Tose were false examples based on your misunderstanding of genetic behaviour.

Subversive Pessimist

26th July 2004, 20:49

One type of abortion involves the injection of an acidic substance into the baby, the baby dies from massive burns. Though the most common type of abortion is surgical.

Ill try to find a website with more detail.

EDIT-Vacuum Aspiration:
In the first trimester, usually 6 to 13 weeks, vacuum aspiration is the procedure used to empty the uterus. This traditional first trimester abortion involves three main steps: (1) an injection to numb the cervix, (2) insertion of a soft flexible tube through the cervix into the uterus, (3) suction created by an aspirating machine to remove the uterine contents. It takes less than five minutes to complete.

IPAS Syringe - Early Abortion with Manual Vacuum Aspiration (MVA):
As soon as the pregnancy can be detected by ultrasound (typically 4-5 weeks), an abortion can be performed using a manual aspiration device called the IPAS Syringe. Similar to the suction aspiration procedure, the IPAS system consists of thin flexible tubing, but instead of using a machine to create suction, the suction is created by a handheld syringe. The procedure usually takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Aftercare is the same as with suction aspiration. Availability of this procedure is based upon doctor's discretion.

D & E (Dilate and Evacuate):
From 13 to 24 weeks, Feminist Women's Health Center uses the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure. Appointments are made for 2-3 consecutive days. On the first day, an ultrasound (sonogram) is performed to determine the size of the fetus. Then, the abortion procedure is begun by numbing the cervix with injections and inserting dilators into the cervix. Overnight these dilators gently expand, opening the entrance to the uterus. The next day, the cervix is again numbed, the dilators are removed, and the doctor uses special instruments to evacuate the uterus removing the pregnancy. The final step is suction using the aspirating machine. In more advanced pregnancies, additional dilators are inserted on the second day and the fetus is removed on the third day. The medical procedure lasts about 10-15 minutes.

General Anesthesia:
At Cedar River Clinic, general anesthesia is an option for either first and second trimester procedures. With general anesthesia, the woman is unconscious during the procedure (5 to 15 minutes) and afterward she has no memory of the events. The type of anesthesia we use is administered intravenously, through an IV in the arm, by a licensed nurse anesthetist. It is fast-acting and consciousness quickly returns when the procedure is over. Afterward, the client relaxes for 1-2 hours before she can leave the clinic and she must not drive afterward. There is an extra charge for general anesthesia and not all insurance plans cover it.

There are obviously more methods of abortion, but these are the only ones I could find.

Invader Zim

26th July 2004, 20:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see why the male should have ANY bearing on the woman's decision to abort; seriously, all the male had to do was fuck (Real hard work I guess :rolleyes: )

And don't give me that shit about the man's right to reproduce. If someone's "right" puts some undeserving person in pain or impinges upon their own freedoms, then it is not a right.
And what did the woman have to do? Put in some serious hard community service to get pregnant? Maybe go to a gym and do a serious work out? All the woman had to do is fuck.

synthesis

26th July 2004, 21:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:59 PM
And what did the woman have to do? Put in some serious hard community service to get pregnant? Maybe go to a gym and do a serious work out? All the woman had to do is fuck.
The woman has to carry around a giant beach ball in her stomach for 9 months. That's the difference. Once the semen is out of the man's testicles, he has no further physical involvement with the process.

Vinny Rafarino

26th July 2004, 22:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:26 PM
The woman has to carry around a giant beach ball in her stomach for 9 months. That's the difference. Once the semen is out of the man's testicles, he has no further physical involvement with the process.
So you too think it's "right" to penalize the male because his biological makeup prevents him from being a delivery device for life?

If we allow proof based on "biology", there would have never been a women's suffrage movement; much less a women's right's movement.

There would also be no women in the military, police or fire department.

It appears to me that in their moralistic crusade for "blind equality", the left has done nothing more than stall progression and in some cases (such as this one) actually moved backwards.

P.S.

The woman does not have to carry the child for nine months any longer, this is not the stone age.

synthesis

26th July 2004, 23:58

So you too think it's "right" to penalize the male because his biological makeup prevents him from being a delivery device for life?

The point is that it is the woman that has to deal with practically every aspect, all the pain and extreme inconvenience of the pregnancy, and she should be able to decide whether she wants to or not.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2004, 01:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:58 PM

The point is that it is the woman that has to deal with practically every aspect, all the pain and extreme inconvenience of the pregnancy, and she should be able to decide whether she wants to or not.
Then you agree that it is okay to make considerations depending on what sex the person is?

You can't have it both ways, either you agree and subsequently agree that men and women have certain "places" in society based on their sex or you disagree and believe that no matter what you think is "right", sex discrimination cannot have a foothold in the new society; regardless of what sex it applies to.

As we have found in this thread, there are people who have not thought their opinions out very well and refuse to answer my questions and there are those that realise what is and isn't progressive.

Which one will you be comrade?

synthesis

27th July 2004, 03:09

There's no sex discrimination involved. If science could allow for men to get pregnant, like in that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, then they would have the same rights to their own body that women should have now.

Unfortunately, at the moment, we only have what nature has given us, and we must adjust to the right of self-ownership accordingly.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2004, 04:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:09 AM
There's no sex discrimination involved. If science could allow for men to get pregnant, like in that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, then they would have the same rights to their own body that women should have now.

Unfortunately, at the moment, we only have what nature has given us, and we must adjust to the right of self-ownership accordingly.
In other words you feel that because a male does not have the necessary anatomy (or ever will have, no matter what "Arnold" thinks) to deliver a child he has to forfeit his right to have a child.

Or in other words, sex discrimination.

What is wrong with you cats? You cling to your illogical rhetoric like it's your last gramme of blow without even considering the consequences of your actions or beliefs.

It astounds me.

synthesis

27th July 2004, 04:24

The tragic fact of the matter is that nature did not endow males with the ability to have children, and until science can remedy the situation, the 'right to have a child' becomes the 'right to force another to have a child.' Negative freedom (i.e. the freedom to force something upon another) is what we're all fighting against.

If a male wants a child, why can't he find a woman who will freely volunteer to have one for him? It seems to happen a lot, you know.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2004, 06:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 04:24 AM
The tragic fact of the matter is that nature did not endow males with the ability to have children, and until science can remedy the situation, the 'right to have a child' becomes the 'right to force another to have a child.' Negative freedom (i.e. the freedom to force something upon another) is what we're all fighting against.

If a male wants a child, why can't he find a woman who will freely volunteer to have one for him? It seems to happen a lot, you know.
So again, what you are saying is that you agree with sex discrimination as long as it is only against males and covered, very thinly I might add, by a layer of pesudo-feminist rhetoric, right?

Capitalist Imperial

27th July 2004, 15:56

My only question is: Why is it purely the woman's choice legally in the USA, when in fact, if she does choose to have the baby, the man has no choice as to whether he is obligated to pay for the child over the next 18 years?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

27th July 2004, 16:07

Thats the question I've been asking the whole time CI.

Subversive Pessimist

27th July 2004, 16:38

Maybe someone could answer the question.

dopediana

28th July 2004, 01:39

that is a tough one. i believe it's because it's an all or nothing situation. there are other ways for a man to get a child. adoption is one of them. women can get impregnated through sperm banks. however, if the man is irresponsible enough to get the woman pregnant and then leave her to have the child, he should be ready to accept responsibility. it's tough to have a child on your own. that's why many single women choose abortion. it's a very difficult financial situation and even with child support from the man it's not enough to cover the child's expenses like health insurance, clothes, food, school materials, medicine, childcare, etc........... kids are loads of trouble.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2004, 01:58

if the man is irresponsible enough to get the woman pregnant

Well then if you believe that the man is the one being "irresponsible" then you must agree that since he is, in your eyes, ultimately responsible for the pregnancy then he should be part of the decision to abort.

Especially since you think that if he himself wants an abortion and the woman does not he must take responsibility for that child; no ifs and or buts about it.

Regression, regression, regression.

Capitalist Imperial

28th July 2004, 16:21

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2004, 01:58 AM

Well then if you believe that the man is the one being "irresponsible" then you must agree that since he is, in your eyes, ultimately responsible for the pregnancy then he should be part of the decision to abort.

Especially since you think that if he himself wants an abortion and the woman does not he must take responsibility for that child; no ifs and or buts about it.

Regression, regression, regression.
I agree. That was my point. Whether the man wants to keep the kid or not does not matter. The woman makes that decision exclusively. That is why things become problematic, because the man gets no real input into the choice over whether or not a baby is kept, but he is forced to pay for it all the same if the woman decides to have it.

Vinny Rafarino

29th July 2004, 04:16

Agreed.

It's shocking how easy it is for people to become fanatical about an issue and dismiss the next logical step due to rhetoric.

This is my one problem with modern feminism among men; they have an uncanny ability to impose irrational thought onto a subject because they think it's the "feminist position" on said subject.

Notice this thread for instancem, none of the questions or arguments that I have brought up ever got answered beyond the same "canned rhetoric".

What really shocks me is what this; do these people actually think that their views will be the more appropriate views in a communist society?

Of course not; The goal of communism is to clear away the rubbish that shield important issues from ever being solved using clear and precise logic.

Speculation of the "tyrannical nature of irresponsible men" and blatent sex discrimination are hardly to be considered "clear and precise logic".

I have a feeling this thread will soon die.

synthesis

29th July 2004, 05:09

Are we talking about abortion in a communist (ideal) society or in our current society?

In a communist society, the question of child support is already resolved. Therefore, that argument holds no water, yet you would still allow the man to force his decision upon the woman? I still haven't seen any reason why a man should be able to violate a woman's right to self-ownership.

In a current society, I think there could be a logical middle ground. Here's a thought: the woman has to register herself as being pregnant within a timespan long enough for the man be notified and to register his opinion. If she plans to have the baby, and the man does not object to the birth, he must support the child. If he does make it clear that he would like the woman to have an abortion, then he is legally severed from any obligations.

If the woman wants to have an abortion, as I said, it doesn't matter what the man thinks. It's not his right to interfere.

Capitalist Imperial

29th July 2004, 15:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:09 AM
Are we talking about abortion in a communist (ideal) society or in our current society?

In a communist society, the question of child support is already resolved. Therefore, that argument holds no water, yet you would still allow the man to force his decision upon the woman? I still haven't seen any reason why a man should be able to violate a woman's right to self-ownership.

In a current society, I think there could be a logical middle ground. Here's a thought: the woman has to register herself as being pregnant within a timespan long enough for the man be notified and to register his opinion. If she plans to have the baby, and the man does not object to the birth, he must support the child. If he does make it clear that he would like the woman to have an abortion, then he is legally severed from any obligations.

If the woman wants to have an abortion, as I said, it doesn't matter what the man thinks. It's not his right to interfere.
I agree ith your plan, as long as the man is in fact severed of all obligations after oficially registering his wishes to terminate or be absolved.

Self-ownership is a legitimate concept as long as another party is not carrying the financial burden. With another party signing the checks, ownership really becomes distributed.

Vinny Rafarino

30th July 2004, 04:30

In a current society, I think there could be a logical middle ground. Here's a thought: the woman has to register herself as being pregnant within a timespan long enough for the man be notified and to register his opinion. If she plans to have the baby, and the man does not object to the birth, he must support the child. If he does make it clear that he would like the woman to have an abortion, then he is legally severed from any obligations.

The only other option you are conveniently omitting is the one we are currently talking about.

The case where a woman wants to abort a pregnancy and the man does not.

Proposing to include "political legislation" to let men "off the hook" on a pregnancy they don't want does not even begin to apply to the rights of the man who actually wants his child.

As far as I can tell, the people here have a tendency to think that no man whould ever willingly choose to take care of the child himself while the mother signs away all responsibility for that child.

If that's the case then why do you care? According to you it would never happen anyway.

Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you assume no man would ever be traumatized by the abortion of a feotus that he wanted to keep.

In the case of equal rights for all people, there is no room for assumptions.

This really hinges on what is right and wrong; deduction does the rest.

We know it's right for women to be able to have abortions.

We know it's right for women to have the only say in regards to aborting a pregnancy that occured from rape and "deadbeat men".

We make these resolutions because we understand that these situations can have a severe affect on the psyche of the female and can lead to permanent psychological trauma.

We know that men can also suffer from severe and possible permanent psychological trauma by having his "child" aborted without his consent.

We know that socioligically it is the trend to see men who do not want to care for a child they don't want as "dead-beats" and have gone do far as to enact legislation that forces them to care for the child; failure to do so being considered a criminal act that is punishable by law, yet there is no law concerning a "dead-beat mother".

We know that medical science can decrease the time the female must carry the child by several months or even entirely if a proper surrogate is found.

We know that the exctraction of the child can be virtually painless for the mother.

We know that most men will choose to agree with the abortion limiting the number of cases.

We know that if the idea of property is brought up, there is no way around the fact that men can claim rights to half of the child as it contains half of their genetic structure.

We know that basing individual rights on biological and anatomical factors alone is discriminatory. (no woman will disagree with this)

We know that limiting the rights of others by punishment for the crimes of their ancestry is illogical. For example, when blacks were given the right to vote in 1965 would anyone consider an edict that revoked the voting rights of whites "in exchange"? Of course not, because that would be not only regressive but also illogical.

We can then deduce what is right from these statements above and create a fair option for all;

It is right that the woman should have complete autonomy in the decision to abort in cases of rape or missing fathers, including the death of the father.

It is right to enact an edict concerning "dead beat" women.

It is right to not allow an abortion to proceed if the male wants to take responsibility for the child and can provide a stable environment for it.

It is right to not allow an abortion to proceed if the woman wants to take responsibility for the child and can provide a stable environment for it.

It is right to allow the woman a choice to sign away all legal responsibilty of a child she does not want.

It is right to allow the male a choice to sign away all legal responsibility of a child he does not want.

These statement present a fair and equal representation of the entire human race regardless of the sex of the person.

Any other option is not equal to all and therefore wrong.

synthesis

30th July 2004, 20:10

Good post.

The only other option you are conveniently omitting is the one we are currently talking about.

I omitted it because I don't think that it should be considered as an option.

As communists, our ultimate goal is the destruction of all institutions of authority. This idea you propose would ensure the legalized control of the man over the woman even into a supposedly 'classless' society.

Any legislation which enables one group of people to force something upon another does not dismantle authority, but rather constructs entirely new institutions.

As far as I can tell, the people here have a tendency to think that no man whould ever willingly choose to take care of the child himself while the mother signs away all responsibility for that child.

I don't make that assumption at all; I've seen it happen in real life. Several good friends of mine never met their mothers at all.

The point, however, is that a woman is being forced to do something by someone who has no legitimate claim to do so.

We know that men can also suffer from severe and possible permanent psychological trauma by having his "child" aborted without his consent.

I'll certainly believe it when I see it, but I'd like to see some real evidence of this. I've never known anyone who this has happened to, nor have I ever even heard of a case like this.

We know that medical science can decrease the time the female must carry the child by several months or even entirely if a proper surrogate is found.

If medical technology actually reaches the point where no action is required on the part of the female to birth the child except perhaps several hours in a clinic somewhere, I'd agree with you.

Until then, though, I cannot agree with legalizing authority in a supposedly communist society.

We know that limiting the rights of others by punishment for the crimes of their ancestry is illogical. For example, when blacks were given the right to vote in 1965 would anyone consider an edict that revoked the voting rights of whites "in exchange"? Of course not, because that would be not only regressive but also illogical.

Extending the right to vote to blacks did not preclude the same right to whites. "Extending the right to have children" to men precludes the woman's right to own herself.

We know that if the idea of property is brought up, there is no way around the fact that men can claim rights to half of the [fetus] as it contains half of their genetic structure.

The woman carries the fetus, she nurtures it, has to alter her lifestyle to keep it healthy. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of her body, and therefore it is a matter of whether or not the concept of 'self-ownership' should be honored.

We know that basing individual rights on biological and anatomical factors alone is discriminatory. (no woman will disagree with this)

Well, you have to make the distinction between 'social rights' and 'biological rights.' No one should be allowed to discriminate against another based on gender, but the reality of biology is that only women can carry a fetus; forcing her to do so violates her right to self-ownership.

In other words, it would turn her into a slave, if only temporarily. This, comrade, is the very same oppression we are struggling to abolish.

Vinny Rafarino

31st July 2004, 01:05

Thanks.

As communists, our ultimate goal is the destruction of all institutions of authority. This idea you propose would ensure the legalized control of the man over the woman even into a supposedly 'classless' society.

Any legislation which enables one group of people to force something upon another does not dismantle authority, but rather constructs entirely new institutions.

I disagree.

As communists our ultimate goal is the destruction of the state apparatus and the current form of law enforcement. There will always be laws that will be applied to society, such as laws against murder, rape, etc.

What will change are two things: the first being that the people will have a say in what laws will be enacted, the second being that the enforcement of these laws will not fall too one specific group of people or organisation; the people themsleves will have to enforce social law. There are a number of ways this can be done but more than likely every citizen will have to "put a certain amount of time" into law enforcement at several points in their lives.

I don't make that assumption at all; I've seen it happen in real life. Several good friends of mine never met their mothers at all.

I think you meant to say "fathers" not "mothers" but anyway, your personal experience in life hitherto is not an accurate guideline on what the people thing or bevave like and is therefore irrelevant.

The point, however, is that a woman is being forced to do something by someone who has no legitimate claim to do so.

I disagree; I have also posted, what I feel to be, irrefutable evidence to support the fact that the male does indeed have a "legitimate claim" to be involved in an abortion.

You simply have posted your opinion, over and over again.

I'll certainly believe it when I see it, but I'd like to see some real evidence of this. I've never known anyone who this has happened to, nor have I ever even heard of a case like this.

Once again your personal experience in life is not a proper guideline on human psychological behaviour.

In addition, are you suggeting that men do not have any emotional and psychological ties to their offspring?

I'm sorry but the empirical evidence that refutes this ideology is so incredibly vast you would have to be locked in a cave your entire life to have missed it.

If medical technology actually reaches the point where no action is required on the part of the female to birth the child except perhaps several hours in a clinic somewhere, I'd agree with you

I hate to break this to you but we have been at that point for some time now.

Does this mean that you now agree with me?

Until then, though, I cannot agree with legalizing authority in a supposedly communist society.

If you do not believe in having some sort of social code of laws in a communist society than I fear you must of a type of communist I have never heard of before.

Extending the right to vote to blacks did not preclude the same right to whites. "Extending the right to have children" to men precludes the woman's right to own herself.

Back to this again. I have already proven that the "woman's right to self ownership" is no different than the man's right to extract his property from the woman. Rights are not"interchangable"; one right has no more purpose than another, therefore all right must be equalised. Period.

It is the only viewpoint a communist can have.

The woman carries the fetus, she nurtures it, has to alter her lifestyle to keep it healthy. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of her body, and therefore it is a matter of whether or not the concept of 'self-ownership' should be honored.

Making this argument is penalizing the male on a strictly anatomical basis and is simply sex discrimination.

Well, you have to make the distinction between 'social rights' and 'biological rights.' No one should be allowed to discriminate against another based on gender, but the reality of biology is that only women can carry a fetus; forcing her to do so violates her right to self-ownership.

You are completely wrong, as I have already pointed out several times.

In other words, it would turn her into a slave, if only temporarily. This, comrade, is the very same oppression we are struggling to abolish.

You are making some extremely odd, and for the most part completely fantastic connections here.

If the woman does not want to be, what you consider to be a "slave", then she will have to undergo a surgical procedure that removes the feotus from her body where it will be incubated by other means.

She has all the "self ownership" she wants, excluding the property that does not belong to her.

And from a psychological standpoint, if she has a problem with having a very simple and non-threatening procedure done to her to remove the feotus but will whole heartily agree to have the same procedure done to her (but "called" an abortion this time) as long as the feotus is killed then she suffers from a severe psychological disorder and is need of medication and/or needs to be committed for psychological treatment.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

31st July 2004, 05:43

Its nice seeing my idea take off like this. I made it up, a few guys like it, and thanks to Comrade RAF, I don't even have to argue it anymore. You guys were the first to hear it. I wonder what the general public would think at such a proposition?

Vinny Rafarino

31st July 2004, 06:49

Its nice seeing my idea take off like this.

What are you nuts? Don't get ahead of yourself son.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

31st July 2004, 19:19

What are you nuts? Don't get ahead of yourself son.

Whatever you say chief.

DarkAngel

1st August 2004, 00:57

To those of you making the equal shit arguments... .... I mean c'mon fellas how do you expect to thave equal right during the 9months of pregnacy, when all you did is enjoy the process? Really, in my opinion equal parental rights should only be granted after the 9months, to active parents.
So if a women wants to abort, if shes not ready or cabale of handeling a baby whos a man to stop her?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

1st August 2004, 06:44

Of course a woman can abort a child if her life is in danger regardless, that is just common sence, however I think the "not ready" catagory would need some consideration before a judge. Some circumstances I would understand, like if its a 14 year old girl, but a woman who doesn't want to put her belly dancing hobby on hold for her (or someone else's) family would need to get their priorities stright. I would expect equal rights because even though I am a man, my family would be in the belly of that woman and I could very well form a psycological and emotional bond with my future son/daughter. It might be *just* a fetus, but it could always very well be my hopes and dreams for the future. Maybe you might think most men just "enjoy the process" and you might very well be right, but for other men, the type of men who would care so much for their "fetuses" that they would want to keep "it" even without the help of the mother, those 9 months are filled with hope and anticipation over that new member of their family. Some go out and buy all the stuff for their baby to be, some get names picked out, some even start their child's future college fund. A woman should at least have to explain before a judge why she feels that she must cut short the dreams of the man she most likely used to love because having a baby doesn't fit into her schedual.

DaCuBaN

1st August 2004, 12:04

So if a women wants to abort, if shes not ready or cabale of handeling a baby whos a man to stop her?
That's fine - if the man doesn't want the child, and states so with (for example) the first 2mths of pregnancy, the woman is the sole provider if she chooses to have it. Similarly, your argument is acceptable - but if a surrogate mother is found and the father wishes to keep the child, she must relinquish it.

It's only fair

Pinko

1st August 2004, 12:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:57 AM
To those of you making the equal shit arguments... .... I mean c'mon fellas how do you expect to thave equal right during the 9months of pregnacy, when all you did is enjoy the process? Really, in my opinion equal parental rights should only be granted after the 9months, to active parents.
So if a women wants to abort, if shes not ready or cabale of handeling a baby whos a man to stop her?
Excuse me, but I played quite an active role in my fiancés pregnancy, especially in the later months.
I practically waited on her hand and foot, did all the house work and all the shopping. Hell, when she go so big that she couldn't bend over at all, I even put her shoes and socks on for her. I made sure she was eating a healthy and balanced diet and did all the cooking.

Men can play a big part in pregnancy, if they want.

P

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

1st August 2004, 17:20

I'm not too sure about this "surrogate" thing you guys keep bringing up. I would imagine such a procedure would be just like invetro fertilization, I don't think its possible to take a fetus out at say...4 months a do such a procedure, and even if you could, I think it is an unnecessary risk to the fetus and to the surrogate. Even if you could transplant a fetus, I would imagine that the surrogate's body could very well reject the fetus which would cause her bodies immune system to attack it, and very possibly killing them both. Besides, its one thing to ask a baby's mother to carry a baby to term, but to ask a woman to risk her life to carry some stranger's child is another can of worms that I would rather leave unopened.

Vinny Rafarino

1st August 2004, 20:56

To those of you making the equal shit arguments

would that mean they are "shit" arguments because you don't understand them or that they are "shit" arguments in comparison to your brilliant four line post?

I mean c'mon fellas how do you expect to thave equal right during the 9months of pregnacy

This conversation is not about nine months of pregnancy, if it were, then the concept of abortion prior to nine months of pregnancy would not be an issue now would it?

when all you did is enjoy the process?

Basic misguided misandry. Put a sock it in kid.

Really, in my opinion equal parental rights should only be granted after the 9months, to active parents.

Then your opinion would be wrong.

So if a women wants to abort, if shes not ready or cabale of handeling a baby whos a man to stop her?

The half owner of the foetus, that's who.

If she refuses to have the foetus removed (at nearly the same time as an abortion mind you) and sign away all legal rights to that child then it will be removed from her by order of the state and she will be subsequently evaluated for several neurological disorders and face possible commitment to a mental health instutution.

I would imagine such a procedure would be just like invetro fertilization

It is in the regard that the feotus is transplanted into a surrogate. Proper in vitro fertilisation requires the egg be fertilised outside of the womb.

don't think its possible to take a fetus out at say...4 months a do such a procedure

The record for the most premature baby was set in 1987 at 128 days premature, or approximately 4 months premature.

That was in 1987, it is now 2004.

think it is an unnecessary risk to the fetus and to the surrogate

What you personally think is irreleveant. In any case you are wrong, transplantation of a blastocast into a surrogate proposes very minimal danger to either the blastocast or the surrogate.

We must also consider that this option would rarely, if ever, be used and will more than likely become obsolete in a few years as medical technology continues to advance at the record pace it currently does.

Even if you could transplant a fetus, I would imagine that the surrogate's body could very well reject the fetus which would cause her bodies immune system to attack it, and very possibly killing them both.

You're very confused. For starters, a surrogate mother would only be a option for pregnacies detected and decided upon early enough for the implanted blastocyst
to trigger a normal pregnancy in the surrogate.

Rejection of the blastocyst would be as rare as the rejection of a blastocyst that occured due to a standard method of conception and is therefore not even a logical method of doubt.

Besides, its one thing to ask a baby's mother to carry a baby to term

No one is asking her to carry the baby to term. She will carry the baby up to point where it can be incubated outside the uterus using medical technology; this amount of time is also getting smaller every year.

The carrying time will enevitably be close to nothing in the future; there is no doubt that technological advances will soon allow babies to be incubated outside the womb from the moment of fertilisation.

As it sits now, the argument against male rights to choice is very thin at best; once a child can be incubated outside the uterus at the point of fertalisation the argument will be completely obsolete and subsequently will pass into history.

As a matter of fact, I can easily see standard couples using this method of incubation as an option to standard gestation; alleviating the entire nine months of pregnancy and all biological and social changes associated with that pregnancy.

You would think that women would want to advance this technology as quick as possible rather than continue to blindly cling to archaic rhetoric, as we have seen so vividly in this thread.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd August 2004, 00:04

What you personally think is irreleveant. In any case you are wrong, transplantation of a blastocast into a surrogate proposes very minimal danger to either the blastocast or the surrogate.

We must also consider that this option would rarely, if ever, be used and will more than likely become obsolete in a few years as medical technology continues to advance at the record pace it currently does.

Well I don't see why a blastocyst transplant wouldn't work, but would seem that such action have to be taken very early in pregnancy. Besides surrogate mother's are typically something that only the extremely rich can take advantage of, and I think any society would have a very difficult time bring to fruition a promise of free surrogate mothers for everyone.

The record for the most premature baby was set in 1987 at 128 days premature, or approximately 4 months premature.

That was in 1987, it is now 2004.

If technology has advanced so much then don't you think that the record that was made in 1987 should have been broken by now?

As it sits now, the argument against male rights to choice is very thin at best; once a child can be incubated outside the uterus at the point of fertalisation the argument will be completely obsolete and subsequently will pass into history.

As a matter of fact, I can easily see standard couples using this method of incubation as an option to standard gestation; alleviating the entire nine months of pregnancy and all biological and social changes associated with that pregnancy.

Even if such an option did exist, the fact remains that such an option would be grossly uneconomical and unnecessary. It would be much more efficient to have the mother simply carry the baby to term rather then wasting the people's precious time and resources contructing elaborate incubators for a few disgruntled mothers. Whatever the conditions are, I am sure that there will be much more worthwhile endeavors for the people to work on like the space program, or medical research (that has a practical application). Such things would be nice to have around, unfortunately we must always use the people's resources in ways that will benefit as many people as much as possible.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2004, 00:59

Besides surrogate mother's are typically something that only the extremely rich can take advantage of, and I think any society would have a very difficult time bring to fruition a promise of free surrogate mothers for everyone.

We are talking about theory. Virtually everything we discuss on this board cannot be applied under modern day capitalism.

This is a forum for discussing what should and should not be.

If technology has advanced so much then don't you think that the record that was made in 1987 should have been broken by now?

Do you find any reason why the record should be broken? Under current conditions, there would be no reason for anyone to have their child prematurely removed from their body.

Under more liberal conditions that are free from the influence of the church we may well see this technology put into action, but until then it ain't gonna happen sonny.

Stop confusing leftist theory with modern practicality, it's annoying.

Even if such an option did exist, the fact remains that such an option would be grossly uneconomical and unnecessary

Your opinion on what or will not be "economical" in a theoretical vision of a socialist society is completely irrelevant.

You personally do not know what will or will not be "economical" in the future. In addition, if the anarchists turn out to be right and the jump straight to capitalism is indeed possible, what is "economical" would be completely irrelevant as money would no longer exist.

It's also a very valuable provedure in a communist and socialist society as it would keep the female from having to take maternity leave while she is pregnant, thus keeping her labour power in the workplace.

You have not thought this out clearly.

It would be much more efficient to have the mother simply carry the baby to term rather then wasting the people's precious time and resources contructing elaborate incubators for a few disgruntled mothers am sure that there will be much more worthwhile endeavors for the people to work on like the space program, or medical research (that has a practical application). Such things would be nice to have around, unfortunately we must always use the people's resources in ways that will benefit as many people as much as possible.

Wrong, see above.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd August 2004, 04:35

We are talking about theory. Virtually everything we discuss on this board cannot be applied under modern day capitalism.

This is a forum for discussing what should and should not be.

We aren't talking about modern day capitalism. I was under the impression we were talking about relevant issues going on today, maybe not in the US, but somewhere in our utopian vision of the world.

Do you find any reason why the record should be broken? Under current conditions, there would be no reason for anyone to have their child prematurely removed from their body.

Under more liberal conditions that are free from the influence of the church we may well see this technology put into action, but until then it ain't gonna happen sonny.

Stop confusing leftist theory with modern practicality, it's annoying.

You are forgetting there is an entire world outside of America, some of which is more or less under the control of the church. Besides, have you ever heard of a miscarriage? Telling me that we can save the lives of miscarried babies but just didn't feel that it was worth our time is an outrageous claim that only someone who has such a conspirital view of the world like Alex Jones would concoct. Perheps it wouldn't be practical to save EVERY premature baby in the world, but I'm sure that if you are rich, I am convinced that everything that money can buy is being put to that patient and their baby's health. It only takes one incident to break a record, and there is quite a bit of fame and prestige for the doctor(s) who manage to break it.

Your opinion on what or will not be "economical" in a theoretical vision of a socialist society is completely irrelevant.

You personally do not know what will or will not be "economical" in the future. In addition, if the anarchists turn out to be right and the jump straight to capitalism is indeed possible, what is "economical" would be completely irrelevant as money would no longer exist.

It's also a very valuable provedure in a communist and socialist society as it would keep the female from having to take maternity leave while she is pregnant, thus keeping her labour power in the workplace.

You have not thought this out clearly.

I am not sure about the there not being money, but for arguements sake I'll go along with you and say there is none. Regardless there will be some limiting resource that people will have to use to their greatest advange, be it money, time, materials, or man power. Just because there might not be money does not mean you can suddenly do everything immediately irrespective of the time and effort that a particular task might require. Just because there might not be money does not mean you now have the power be "uneconomical".

It's also a very valuable provedure in a communist and socialist society as it would keep the female from having to take maternity leave while she is pregnant, thus keeping her labour power in the workplace.

I would suspect that it would take more manhours to construct, maintain, and operate such a machine then would be saved by a mere cut maternity leave. Besides, mothers would still need some maternity leave to take care of their newborn infants, and even if they don't need to, I don't think it is our place to step in between a mother and father and their newborn infant. Besides, I really don't think the general public anywhere would be very receptive of the idea of artifical gestation, and should such a machine become feasable to use, then I would think it should only be used in situations where the mother is incapable of carrying her child any longer.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2004, 05:26

We aren't talking about modern day capitalism. I was under the impression we were talking about relevant issues going on today, maybe not in the US, but somewhere in our utopian vision of the world.

No kidding that's the point I was attempting to make by your suggestion that only "rich people" will take advantage of the technology. the concept of "rich people" did not apply to our argument, yet you still mad ethe statement.

Where did you get lost here?

You are forgetting there is an entire world outside of America, some of which is more or less under the control of the church. Besides, have you ever heard of a miscarriage? Telling me that we can save the lives of miscarried babies but just didn't feel that it was worth our time is an outrageous claim that only someone who has such a conspirital view of the world like Alex Jones would concoct.

This is not even relevant to the discussion. A miscarriage has nothing to do with the fact that we have technology available that can incubate premature babies very early on in their development.

What makes it different is simply that you cannot "predict" a miscarriage and when it does happen, it is very sudden and medical facilities are usually never available.

Where do you make these cuckoo connections from?

Perheps it wouldn't be practical to save EVERY premature baby in the world, but I'm sure that if you are rich, I am convinced that everything that money can buy is being put to that patient and their baby's health. It only takes one incident to break a record, and there is quite a bit of fame and prestige for the doctor(s) who manage to break it.

Yu are confused again. I can care less about "saving babies". The discussion was about using medical technology to allow for the male to keep his child (if he desires it) and provide an alternative to normal gestation for the mother (if she does not want the child).

In addition, like I said before, in the current era there would be no reason to attempt a stunt like this "for the records. It also must be stated that cases where children are born this premature are very rare indeed amd usually include other complications (such as those with a miscarriage) that will, for all intensive purposes, allow for the death of the foetus.

As far as your line of thinking about doctors wanting the "fame" of breaking a record, I highly doubt the or any other medical practitioner would even fathom the idea. It's absolute nonsense.

Again, where did I lose you?

I am not sure about the there not being money, but for arguements sake I'll go along with you and say there is none. Regardless there will be some limiting resource that people will have to use to their greatest advange, be it money, time, materials, or man power. Just because there might not be money does not mean you can suddenly do everything immediately irrespective of the time and effort that a particular task might require. Just because there might not be money does not mean you now have the power be "uneconomical".

You are "not sure" if there will be money in a communist society? I don't know what brand of "communism" you subscribe to but I can most certainly say it isn't communism.

Without monetary value, there is not such thing as economical as there is no such thing as an economy.

In any case I have already presented to you how labour value would possibly be saved by a procedure such as this, if you cannot understand how or why then I cannot help you.

would suspect that it would take more manhours to construct, maintain, and operate such a machine then would be saved by a mere cut maternity leave

Wrong, once these machines are consructed, they will be used many, many times.
Now take the value of labour for 5 thousand people for several months each and compare it to the labour value of building and operating one machine.

It's the gift that keeps on giving. :lol:

In any case, I doubt that such archaic models of "value" will ever be practical in the future.

Besides, I really don't think the general public anywhere would be very receptive of the idea of artifical gestation, and should such a machine become feasable to use, then I would think it should only be used in situations where the mother is incapable of carrying her child any longer.

The masses currently accept a wide array of things that are much scarier than artificial gestation, who's to say what they will be willing to accept in the future? You? Me?

Only time will tell esse.

Besides, mothers would still need some maternity leave to take care of their newborn infants

Or perhaps they won't. Who's to say?

Perhaps there will be a force of workers who sole job is to care for infants during the periods where there parents are at work? Perhaps even a large building will possibly be erected where thousands of babies will be watched by a crew of workers with a baby to worker ration of somewere between 10 to 1, or even greater depending on case analysis.

You dig?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd August 2004, 14:42

No kidding that's the point I was attempting to make by your suggestion that only "rich people" will take advantage of the technology. the concept of "rich people" did not apply to our argument, yet you still mad ethe statement.

Where did you get lost here?

Forget it then.

This is not even relevant to the discussion. A miscarriage has nothing to do with the fact that we have technology available that can incubate premature babies very early on in their development.

What makes it different is simply that you cannot "predict" a miscarriage and when it does happen, it is very sudden and medical facilities are usually never available.

Where do you make these cuckoo connections from?

True, you can't, but the accusation that doctors have the technology to save the lives pf premature babies but for some reason feel it unnecessary is outrageous. You would think in the 17 years since that record was made, that there would be one freak incident where someone had a baby just a few days earilier then the established record in a hospital or some other place where there was medical care on hand. Forget it, your claim about the technology is ludacris, and I don't feel it necessary to argue this point further.

You are "not sure" if there will be money in a communist society? I don't know what brand of "communism" you subscribe to but I can most certainly say it isn't communism.

Without monetary value, there is not such thing as economical as there is no such thing as an economy.

In any case I have already presented to you how labour value would possibly be saved by a procedure such as this, if you cannot understand how or why then I cannot help you.

I actaully support more of a Cuban style socialist economy, but since we are in OI, most other people take socialism to mean regulated capitalism, and what I believe to be communism.

Wrong, once these machines are consructed, they will be used many, many times.
Now take the value of labour for 5 thousand people for several months each and compare it to the labour value of building and operating one machine.

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

In any case, I doubt that such archaic models of "value" will ever be practical in the future.

You can't analyze the specs of a machine that doesn't exist! Therefore this is a moot point.

Perhaps there will be a force of workers who sole job is to care for infants during the periods where there parents are at work? Perhaps even a large building will possibly be erected where thousands of babies will be watched by a crew of workers with a baby to worker ration of somewere between 10 to 1, or even greater depending on case analysis.

And Comrade RAF said let there be daycare!

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2004, 18:52

Forget it, your claim about the technology is ludacris, and I don't feel it necessary to argue this point further.

So, what claim did I make, son?

Or is the truth really that you [/B]assumed I made specific claims of anything after informing you that back in 1987 a child was successfully delivered 128 early and incubated outside the womb?

You're easy to manipulate.

[b]You would think in the 17 years since that record was made, that there would be one freak incident where someone had a baby just a few days earilier then the established record in a hospital or some other place where there was medical care on hand

Why? Because you cannot comprehend why there hasn't? That's not good enough.

I actaully support more of a Cuban style socialist economy, but since we are in OI, most other people take socialism to mean regulated capitalism, and what I believe to be communism.

I hate to break this to you but what "you believe to be communism" is not communism in any sense of the word.

I have also never met a socialist that believes the word to mean "regulated capitalism". those individuals are simply referred to by me, and the rest of the left as "capitalists".

Where do you get this crap from?

You can't analyze the specs of a machine that doesn't exist! Therefore this is a moot point.

Wrong.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd August 2004, 23:28

So, what claim did I make, son?

Or is the truth really that you assumed I made specific claims of anything after informing you that back in 1987 a child was successfully delivered 128 early and incubated outside the womb?

You're easy to manipulate.

You made the claim the technology exists to incubate a fetus much earilier then 128 days premature.

Why? Because you cannot comprehend why there hasn't? That's not good enough.

Yes, I admit I cannot comprehend there being a global conspiracy to withhold treatment and technology to expectant mothers. You got me. :/

I hate to break this to you but what "you believe to be communism" is not communism in any sense of the word.

I have also never met a socialist that believes the word to mean "regulated capitalism". those individuals are simply referred to by me, and the rest of the left as "capitalists".

Where do you get this crap from?

My beliefs are my beliefs, I could care less what you call them.

You can't analyze the specs of a machine that doesn't exist! Therefore this is a moot point.

Wrong.

The depth of that reply rivals some of those of Capitalist Imperial's. Anyways, since you made it very clear that we can analyze and plan to build that machines that don't exist, why don't we see if it would be worth our while to build teleporters everywhere, and a Starship Galatica equipt with an artifical gamma ray burster just for Noxion. :)

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2004, 02:31

You made the claim the technology exists to incubate a fetus much earilier then 128 days premature.

No I didn't.

My quote was this:

The record for the most premature baby was set in 1987 at 128 days premature, or approximately 4 months premature.

That was in 1987, it is now 2004.

And where is the claim that modern technology absolutely can provide an alternative to standard gestation beyond 128 days premature?

Now read carefully;

Modern science can decrease the gestation time by several months.

That is all I have ever said, however since logic is not your forte, I will explain this again;

If in 1987 we possesed the medical technology do successfully incubate a baby outside the mother uterus, then it is likely (beyond likely actually considering the vast advancments in medicine over the last decade) that we now possess medical technology that can go even further than that.

We can be positive about one thing sunshine, the technology definitely has not regressed since 1987.

Yes, I admit I cannot comprehend there being a global conspiracy to withhold treatment and technology to expectant mothers. You got me. :/

Me ever mentioning something as absurd as this is another figment of you imagination.

You are not even close to what I was referring about when I stated you lack the necessary comprehension required to understand me.

If you even had a shred of abilty to think logically, you would have already understood that a technology such as this would have never been used in the manner I suggest it could be due to the common social morality of the modern capitalist era coupled with extreme religious fundamentalism amoung our politicians.

The depth of that reply rivals some of those of Capitalist Imperial's. Anyways, since you made it very clear that we can analyze and plan to build that machines that don't exist, why don't we see if it would be worth our while to build teleporters everywhere, and a Starship Galatica equipt with an artifical gamma ray burster just for Noxion.

I reckon ignorance truly is bliss for you isn't it?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd August 2004, 02:42

I don't think technology has regressed since 1987, but I don't think there has been any major discoveries in the field of prenatal care. Modern science cannot currently decrease the gestation time at all. Perhaps they it can save the life of a premature baby, by placing it in intensive care, but that child will not be very healty later in life. As far as I've heard, most babies who are born over 90 days premature are very likely to suffer some serious disability if they survive.

If you even had a shred of abilty to think logically, you would have already understood that a technology such as this would have never been used in the manner I suggest it could be due to the common social morality of the modern capitalist era coupled with extreme religious fundamentalism amoung our politicians.

Its a big world out there, and there are 5.7 billion people living in places other then the United States.

synthesis

3rd August 2004, 05:40

My apologies for taking so long to get back to this topic.

As communists our ultimate goal is the destruction of the state apparatus and the current form of law enforcement. There will always be laws that will be applied to society, such as laws against murder, rape, etc.

This is true; my original statement was poorly defined or at least not explained to the degree that it should have been.

Ultimately, all authority that does exist must be justified. Authority over murderers and rapists is justified - these peoples' actions demand that some form of freedom be taken away from them.

Should the action of a woman justify her freedom being taken away from her?

You may not think it a huge moral issue to do so "in this case"... but I believe that ANY unjustified authority being institutionalized sets a dangerous precedent for any supposedly communist society.

I think you meant to say "fathers" not "mothers" but anyway, your personal experience in life hitherto is not an accurate guideline on what the people thing or bevave like and is therefore irrelevant.

I did mean "mothers" and I think you should reread what I was saying. Your statements implied that I thought that a single father wouldn't take care of his child, given the opportunity, and I said that this wasn't the case, and I had personal experience to back it up.

In other words, I was saying that I didn't make the assumptions that you seemed to think I did.

Once again your personal experience in life is not a proper guideline on human psychological behaviour.

I never said it was; I said I had an absence of any evidence on the specific topic at all with the exception of the absence of evidence itself. I simply thought you had some real information on the subject.

I'm sorry but the empirical evidence that refutes this ideology is so incredibly vast you would have to be locked in a cave your entire life to have missed it.

Hurt feelings does not equate to "psychological trauma", at least as far as I know.

I hate to break this to you but we have been at that point for some time now.

Does this mean that you now agree with me?

I think it would depend on exactly how this procedure works.

Say a woman enjoys smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, and possibly indulging in other entheogens. Would the procedure infringe upon her right to engage in these activities? After all, it'd be dangerous for the baby, wouldn't it? And, by your logic, the fetus is half the father's property, right? So she wouldn't be allowed to damage it?

If it forces her to live her life any differently than she would otherwise, I cannot condone it.

If you do not believe in having some sort of social code of laws in a communist society than I fear you must of a type of communist I have never heard of before.

I misspoke. See above :)

You are completely wrong [on the topic of fetal ownership], as I have already pointed out several times.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Simply because the baby carries around half of the man's genetic structure does not make it "half his." If the woman and the woman alone has to adjust her lifestyle to take care of the fetus, then she "made it."

It's "hers."

You are making some extremely odd, and for the most part completely fantastic connections here.

If the woman does not want to be, what you consider to be a "slave", then she will have to undergo a surgical procedure that removes the feotus from her body where it will be incubated by other means.

She has all the "self ownership" she wants, excluding the property that does not belong to her.

And from a psychological standpoint, if she has a problem with having a very simple and non-threatening procedure done to her to remove the feotus but will whole heartily agree to have the same procedure done to her (but "called" an abortion this time) as long as the feotus is killed then she suffers from a severe psychological disorder and is need of medication and/or needs to be committed for psychological treatment.

I'd have to wait to respond to this until I hear what you have to say on the lifestyle question.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2004, 06:36

Modern science cannot currently decrease the gestation time at all. Perhaps they it can save the life of a premature baby, by placing it in intensive care, but that child will not be very healty later in life. As far as I've heard, most babies who are born over 90 days premature are very likely to suffer some serious disability if they survive.

You are grossly misinformed.

Its a big world out there, and there are 5.7 billion people living in places other then the United States

You do realise that I am not from the USA right? Rgerdless, this has nothing at all to do with the subject.

My apologies for taking so long to get back to this topic.

No problem at all comrade; apologies are not necessary.

Should the action of a woman justify her freedom being taken away from her?

You may not think it a huge moral issue to do so "in this case"... but I believe that ANY unjustified authority being institutionalized sets a dangerous precedent for any supposedly communist society.

I do not believe that any freddoms have been robbed from the woman; like I said previously, if she is not willing to have a similar procedure that she will have by getting an abortion that will satisfy all parties for no reason but her own is not a logical justification to comply with her wishes.

In other words, if she stands firm on such an illogical action, then she obviously does not have the capabilty to think in a rational and thoughful manner and it would therefore be irresponsible to comply with the wishes of the delusional.

Men and women alike should stive for equal rights for all people, regardless of personal feelings.

did mean "mothers" and I think you should reread what I was saying. Your statements implied that I thought that a single father wouldn't take care of his child, given the opportunity, and I said that this wasn't the case, and I had personal experience to back it up.

In other words, I was saying that I didn't make the assumptions that you seemed to think I did.

I reread the original quote and you are correct, I misinterpreted what you were truing to say.

never said it was; I said I had an absence of any evidence on the specific topic at all with the exception of the absence of evidence itself. I simply thought you had some real information on the subject.

There is ample evidence proving that both mothers and fathers share a psychological bond with their children; A little reasearch is all it takes.

You know me well enough by now comrade, I normally don't fall for the "prove it with a link" argument; (not saying this is your tactic of course) I do my research and expect everyone else to do the same. Can you dig it?

Hurt feelings does not equate to "psychological trauma", at least as far as I know.

How can you quantify how another individual will psychologically react to stimuli that you yourself may find to be unmoving? What may seem like nothing to you could most definitely be devastating to another.

It is not up to us to make these judgements based on our own psychological profile; we must consider how stimuli will affect all people, not just ourselves and act accordingly.

Say a woman enjoys smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, and possibly indulging in other entheogens. Would the procedure infringe upon her right to engage in these activities? After all, it'd be dangerous for the baby, wouldn't it? And, by your logic, the fetus is half the father's property, right? So she wouldn't be allowed to damage it?

If an individual puts these acts above the psychological well being of another human, then she is in need of mental evaluation. Not only that, this sort of illogical behaviour embodies a mentalitly more suited to the capitalist mind rather than the communist one.

If it forces her to live her life any differently than she would otherwise, I cannot condone it.

It seems to me like you are taking the easy way out here comrade.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Simply because the baby carries around half of the man's genetic structure does not make it "half his." If the woman and the woman alone has to adjust her lifestyle to take care of the fetus, then she "made it."

It's "hers."

It appears we will have to agree to disagree then comrade.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd August 2004, 06:51

Hurt feelings does not equate to "psychological trauma", at least as far as I know.

Going from a father to be to just another guy amounts to more then just "hurt feelings" for many people.

I think it would depend on exactly how this procedure works.

Say a woman enjoys smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, and possibly indulging in other entheogens. Would the procedure infringe upon her right to engage in these activities? After all, it'd be dangerous for the baby, wouldn't it? And, by your logic, the fetus is half the father's property, right? So she wouldn't be allowed to damage it?

If it forces her to live her life any differently than she would otherwise, I cannot condone it.

The way I see it, although smoking and moderate drinking might increase the chances of the baby being born with some sort of defect, people do it all the time anyways, and unfortunately there is really nothing that can be done except for those involved with the mother to be supportive in her life during her pregnancy. A person who would go out of their way to use drugs or get drunk while pregnent however must be one sick individual in need of a some psychiatric care. Besides, a person with alcoholism or a serious drug addiction is in need of treatment, pregnant or not.

If it forces her to live her life any differently than she would otherwise, I cannot condone it.

Responsibility isn't all ice cream and Mickey Mouse. A lot of things will happen in everyone's life that will cause them to "live their life differently then they would otherwise". Deal with it.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Simply because the baby carries around half of the man's genetic structure does not make it "half his." If the woman and the woman alone has to adjust her lifestyle to take care of the fetus, then she "made it."

A woman must make a temporary adjustment for 9 months because she got involved in something that would completely change a man's life to for the next 18 years or so. Unfortunate, but necessary. She can always try to mediate with the baby's perfect father. :)

synthesis

4th August 2004, 02:53

I do not believe that any freedoms have been robbed from the woman; like I said previously, if she is not willing to have a similar procedure that she will have by getting an abortion that will satisfy all parties for no reason but her own is not a logical justification to comply with her wishes.

Yet, getting an abortion is completely different. When a woman plans to get an abortion, she is under no obligation to change her lifestyle at all.

When we assume that the justification for allowing the male to force the woman to take care of the fetus is that the fetus is "half-his", we must assume that damage to the fetus is in some sense damaging someone else's property. It is therefore logical to assume that, if this were enacted, then any woman who is suspected of getting pregnant would have to be forced to change her lifestyle in order to protect the man's property.

I cannot abide by this; as I said, it sets a very dangerous precedent for what is acceptable and what is not.

You know me well enough by now comrade, I normally don't fall for the "prove it with a link" argument; (not saying this is your tactic of course) I do my research and expect everyone else to do the same. Can you dig it?

Of course, it's your choice as to how you want to debate matters. I simply feel that it sets a standard of good debate to cite one's sources when requested to.

If an individual puts these acts above the psychological well being of another human, then she is in need of mental evaluation. Not only that, this sort of illogical behaviour embodies a mentalitly more suited to the capitalist mind rather than the communist one.

I don't think it's illogical at all. Say the woman is addicted to nicotine, alcohol, or heroin (all of which I presume will be legal in a communist society), and she has no plans to change her habits any time soon. Is it right to force her to go through several months of withdrawals on the part of the male?

It seems to me like you are taking the easy way out here comrade.

I don't think it's the easy route at all. I have no personal stake in this matter, and obviously it would probably be (slightly) more in my self-interest to support your idea, since it is conceivable that I could encounter a situation like this some time in my life.

The 'slippery slope' argument is often maligned, but in terms of a communist society, I think it's applicable. When authority to force one to adhere to the whims of another is institutionalized, it can create a mentality that I don't think we can afford to.

It appears we will have to agree to disagree then comrade.

It would definitely seem that way. There are bigger issues to tackle. Cheers :)

all-too-human

4th August 2004, 03:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:51 AM
Responsibility isn't all ice cream and Mickey Mouse. A lot of things will happen in everyone's life that will cause them to "live their life differently then they would otherwise". Deal with it.
Pregnancy, and the raising of a child is quite possibly one of the largest undertakings a single person can embark on. One cannot "Deal with" an unexpected or teenage pregnancy.

A woman must make a temporary adjustment for 9 months because she got involved in something that would completely change a man's life to for the next 18 years or so. Unfortunate, but necessary. She can always try to mediate with the baby's perfect father. :)
Yes, men are solely responsible for raising the child. Wrong.

In 1995, single parent households made up almost 31% (11 million)of the total family groupings with children under the age of 18. Of those 11 million single parent households, 15% (1.7 million) represent single, custodial father households, a 330% increase from 1970.
from the Ohio State University Extension Factsheet - Family and Consumer Sciences.

Vinny Rafarino

5th August 2004, 01:58

When we assume that the justification for allowing the male to force the woman to take care of the fetus is that the fetus is "half-his", we must assume that damage to the fetus is in some sense damaging someone else's property. It is therefore logical to assume that, if this were enacted, then any woman who is suspected of getting pregnant would have to be forced to change her lifestyle in order to protect the man's property.

Here we go with more tirades abou men "forcing their will" onto poor unsuspecting women; this one has been tried before so I will ignore it.

As far as the remainder of you post goes, you have conceniently left out several options that could happen prior to "forcing" women to house the foetus for a few months (how dreadful!)

You are trying to to play a game of semantics that, for the most part, won't work on me.

You can use words like "force" and phrases like "suspected of getting pregnant" all you want but it does not make it relevant to the conversation.

I was a bit put out by your last excuse for debate you remember, the argument against equal rights for all in accordance to women not being able to smoke, drink and party?) so I pretty much decided to end the conversation; however I really had to respond to this one as you have not really said anything different fromt the same archaic line, you have just attempted to make me seem "sinister".

Of course, it's your choice as to how you want to debate matters. I simply feel that it sets a standard of good debate to cite one's sources when requested to.

Come on now, what you're saying is that men are unable to have a psychological connection AT ALL with their offspring.

You do realise how absurd that is right? I will not be bothered to "produce evidence" of something that is so common, that to actually say it does not exist is to betray logic so completely, that I am quite certain you are simply playing a game.

Do you really want to drag this one on any further?

I don't think it's illogical at all. Say the woman is addicted to nicotine, alcohol, or heroin (all of which I presume will be legal in a communist society), and she has no plans to change her habits any time soon. Is it right to force her to go through several months of withdrawals on the part of the male?

If that is an acceptable excuse to you then there is no point in debating any further as that type of self interest is nothing more than greedy bourgeois behaviour that has no place in a communist society.

I am shocked you would even say it.

It would definitely seem that way. There are bigger issues to tackle. Cheers .

Definitely, cheers.