U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-23-2009, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,416 posts, read 8,067,521 times
Reputation: 3764

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
As to you my friend.

That last post was spot on. I was nodding my head (and chuckling) all the way through.
That comment was unnecessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2009, 04:53 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 3,379,912 times
Reputation: 3745
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I'd like to stop this argument....I'm not saying "you've won." What I am saying is that I respect your opinion (yes I respect women's opinions just as much as men's) and you are very much entitled to it. You are viewing this entirely as a medical issue while I (and many others) see it as a far more emotional one...I think that is the main difference.
It's okay, afoigrokerkok. You don't have to respect my opinion, and it's not something that anyone is entitled to. One simply has an opinion, and that's that. And I do think that abortion is an emotional issue -- of course it is -- but not for legal purposes. Legislating on the basis of emotion is a recipe for tyranny and oppression -- always has been, and societies should avoid it as much as possible, even if that means not criminalizing conduct that shocks and upsets a lot of people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I admit my views could be biased as a man. That said, there are many women who are pro-life and who are far more extreme than me, including women who HAVE experienced pregnancy and childbirth.
My question to you was rhetorical. I won't dismiss someone else's opinion on account of their gender, but that's just me. Everyone is biased to one extent or another, but I believe many men can see past their biases, as can many women. And many can't. And again -- I don't believe either gender has a hive mind. That's why the fact that some women are pro-life and extreme does not convince me in the least that I should change my opinion. People undergo similar experiences, and take away different things from them. Some women go through pregnancy and childbirth, and it makes them feel morally superior to those women who haven't. Others view it differently. I can't analyze some hypothetical woman's bias. We are all individuals despite our uteri and our biological drives, and no woman's opinion is gospel to me just because it exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 02:29 AM
 
Location: San Francisco & Fort Worth & Now, Back to IRAQ
3,001 posts, read 2,465,562 times
Reputation: 5545
What's my stance on abortion...

Don't like it, don't have one!

If its NOT YOURS, its not YOUR business!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 06:24 AM
 
9,925 posts, read 8,842,469 times
Reputation: 7163
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I should add having your tubes tied is also, of course, an option.
I'm glad you brought that up actually.

Given that a male of fertile age can and often does impregnant more than one woman over their repoductive life span. Given that a male of fertile age could potentially impregnant not just one but many more women over a 9 month period without too much effort. Given that repeatedly there are males of fertile age that do play without protecting themselves and their sexual partner/s AND given that repeatedly it seems to be the same old complaints about having to face up to responsibilities when caught out, what say we make it manditory for all fertile men of reproductive age that wish to play and not pay that don't agree with abortion to have vasectomies?
I hear they're reversable and seeing as we're not talking immaculate conceptions here and there is always a guy involved in it somewhere why not make it law that they have to share some of the physical burden of medical procedures to ensure that abortion isn't the outcome of their efforts? PARTICULARLY for repeat offenders.

It gets tiresome to hear men and women REPEATEDLY vilify women for wanting to maintain some kind of autonomy over their bodies when they're only one half of the equation. Society needs to quit coming up with new and interesting things that women should do to their bodies to ensure the life of a cluster of cells that cannot sustain its own life and start thinking about laying some of the burden of responsibility where it belongs, with the male.

But we all know that's not going to happen, don't we? It's so much easier to label the women and come up with new and interesting ways to qualify what she can and can't do with her body AND to vilify her for the choices she makes while the guy that helped to get her to this situation is free and clear to run off and do the same thing all over again with someone else and someone else after that. (I really wish someone would do a study on that! How many of the women that end up pregnant and seeking an abortion are impregnated by guys that are repeat offenders!)

If you want an end to abortion maybe quit looking at what women should and shouldn't be doing and start looking at what men are and aren't doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 04:33 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 3,379,912 times
Reputation: 3745
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshadow View Post
It gets tiresome to hear men and women REPEATEDLY vilify women for wanting to maintain some kind of autonomy over their bodies when they're only one half of the equation. Society needs to quit coming up with new and interesting things that women should do to their bodies to ensure the life of a cluster of cells that cannot sustain its own life and start thinking about laying some of the burden of responsibility where it belongs, with the male.
Precisely. Pro-lifers invariably base their arguments on the assumption that it is always the woman who must undertake the primary responsibility for preventing conception -- even in cases where, according to "men's rights" advocates, the woman has every incentive to conceive and the man has every incentive that she don't. In fact, apparently even a rape victim is held more responsible for not preventing conception than her rapist. You can see this attitude expressed clearly both in this thread and in that ridiculous parallel "Men and Abortion" thread.

Pharmaceutical companies spent over 20 years developing a male birth control pill. However, although it is completely feasible, several manufacturers simply abandoned their projects in this area when they learned that there just wasn't enough of a market for this product to make it profitable. Quite simply, men don't want to take the pill. Oh, some do. And researchers found that many men like the idea of the male pill in principle. But when informed that the pill would carry slightly increased risks of cancer, heart attack and stroke, as well as that after stopping the pill, it would take a whopping 2-3 months for fertility to be restored, most men surveyed balked. Now, we know that female birth control pills carry the risks of those very side effects -- plus blood clots. Plus weight gain. Plus mood swings. And yet, millions of women routinely take birth control pills for decades. So what's the difference here? Some who have posted here would probably argue that women are just stupider than men, or more reckless, or less responsible, or just so slutty they would risk their health for a little fun in the sack, but I think we all know the reality is that men in general have a lot less to fear from an unwanted conception than women. They know that in most cases, the woman will bear the lion's share of the problem anyway, so shouldn't she "take care" of it? Plus, women are expected to jeopardize their health when in comes to sex -- men aren't. And of course, the dearth of enthusiasm among men for their own birth control pill shows that paternity suits aren't nearly as widely abused as some would have us believe.

On this thread, and on that "Men and Abortion" thread, plenty of vitriol is leveled at women who indulge in "instant gratification", then seek to "avoid responsibility" -- this vitriol is directed at them even when they have safe sex, and the safety device fails. No such condemnation, however, is directed at men who choose to have unprotected sex. Women who have unprotected sex, or even protected sex without success, are just irresponsible sluts; men who have unprotected sex are just exercising their prerogative. This double standard reminds me of a recent controversy over Ross Douthat, a poster boy of the pro-life movement who wrote in his memoirs that he cannot get it up for a woman who is on the pill. So he is against abortion and against oral contraceptives. Not against casual sex, though. I wonder, what's the likelihood big man Ross would be willing to wear a condom? Incidentally, apparently he isn't concerned about being taken advantage of should his one-night stand partner become pregnant. I bet that like most pro-life men, he condemns abortion in public, but in his private relationships, does not object to -- nay, expects -- the woman to "take care of it", with the added bonus that he will then be in a position to act morally superior and vilify her. And that's just it: what really inspires all that talk about forcing women (but not men) "to take responsibility" is the culture which views a woman's humiliation, her destruction, her despair, and her loss of control over her own destiny as a necessary, unalienable, even romantic aspect of sex. Viewing the sex act as a woman's memento mori, associating sexual activity with the woman's death has been a romantic theme going back to medieval times. This is the reason men like Douthat (and there are plenty of them, invariably "pro-life") simply can't enjoy sex with a woman unless the act will put her in peril and deprive her of both agency and autonomy.

Here is the thing: tying the Fallopian tubes is a far more complicated and expensive procedure, and much more difficult to reverse than a vasectomy. But suggest a vasectomy as a way for men to take responsibility for their sexuality, and a pro-lifer will always shoot back that women should tie their tubes first. Because making sure you don't get pregnant is a woman problem, not a man problem. Unless you actually do get pregnant, in which case, all of a sudden, your uterus and the fetus growing in it belong to the man.

And with all that, they have the gall to claim they aren't sexist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 04:36 PM
 
365 posts, read 608,156 times
Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
I have to assume this has been done before but I want to hear peoples stance on one of the most controversial debates of our time. Please post your stance first before u start arguing against other peoples stance.

and as always, there is no reason we cannot be civil about this so dont go postal on anyone for stating their beliefs .
In my opinion, it is murder no matter how you slice it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,416 posts, read 8,067,521 times
Reputation: 3764
I give the men and women equal responsibility and suggest vasectomies to men who don't want to be responsible for children as well.

After thinking about this issue more, I don't see how either side of this is not sexist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 10:11 PM
 
9,925 posts, read 8,842,469 times
Reputation: 7163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Precisely. Pro-lifers invariably base their arguments on the assumption that it is always the woman who must undertake the primary responsibility for preventing conception -- even in cases where, according to "men's rights" advocates, the woman has every incentive to conceive and the man has every incentive that she don't. In fact, apparently even a rape victim is held more responsible for not preventing conception than her rapist. You can see this attitude expressed clearly both in this thread and in that ridiculous parallel "Men and Abortion" thread.

Pharmaceutical companies spent over 20 years developing a male birth control pill. However, although it is completely feasible, several manufacturers simply abandoned their projects in this area when they learned that there just wasn't enough of a market for this product to make it profitable. Quite simply, men don't want to take the pill. Oh, some do. And researchers found that many men like the idea of the male pill in principle. But when informed that the pill would carry slightly increased risks of cancer, heart attack and stroke, as well as that after stopping the pill, it would take a whopping 2-3 months for fertility to be restored, most men surveyed balked. Now, we know that female birth control pills carry the risks of those very side effects -- plus blood clots. Plus weight gain. Plus mood swings. And yet, millions of women routinely take birth control pills for decades. So what's the difference here? Some who have posted here would probably argue that women are just stupider than men, or more reckless, or less responsible, or just so slutty they would risk their health for a little fun in the sack, but I think we all know the reality is that men in general have a lot less to fear from an unwanted conception than women. They know that in most cases, the woman will bear the lion's share of the problem anyway, so shouldn't she "take care" of it? Plus, women are expected to jeopardize their health when in comes to sex -- men aren't. And of course, the dearth of enthusiasm among men for their own birth control pill shows that paternity suits aren't nearly as widely abused as some would have us believe.

On this thread, and on that "Men and Abortion" thread, plenty of vitriol is leveled at women who indulge in "instant gratification", then seek to "avoid responsibility" -- this vitriol is directed at them even when they have safe sex, and the safety device fails. No such condemnation, however, is directed at men who choose to have unprotected sex. Women who have unprotected sex, or even protected sex without success, are just irresponsible sluts; men who have unprotected sex are just exercising their prerogative. This double standard reminds me of a recent controversy over Ross Douthat, a poster boy of the pro-life movement who wrote in his memoirs that he cannot get it up for a woman who is on the pill. So he is against abortion and against oral contraceptives. Not against casual sex, though. I wonder, what's the likelihood big man Ross would be willing to wear a condom? Incidentally, apparently he isn't concerned about being taken advantage of should his one-night stand partner become pregnant. I bet that like most pro-life men, he condemns abortion in public, but in his private relationships, does not object to -- nay, expects -- the woman to "take care of it", with the added bonus that he will then be in a position to act morally superior and vilify her. And that's just it: what really inspires all that talk about forcing women (but not men) "to take responsibility" is the culture which views a woman's humiliation, her destruction, her despair, and her loss of control over her own destiny as a necessary, unalienable, even romantic aspect of sex. Viewing the sex act as a woman's memento mori, associating sexual activity with the woman's death has been a romantic theme going back to medieval times. This is the reason men like Douthat (and there are plenty of them, invariably "pro-life") simply can't enjoy sex with a woman unless the act will put her in peril and deprive her of both agency and autonomy.

Here is the thing: tying the Fallopian tubes is a far more complicated and expensive procedure, and much more difficult to reverse than a vasectomy. But suggest a vasectomy as a way for men to take responsibility for their sexuality, and a pro-lifer will always shoot back that women should tie their tubes first. Because making sure you don't get pregnant is a woman problem, not a man problem. Unless you actually do get pregnant, in which case, all of a sudden, your uterus and the fetus growing in it belong to the man.

And with all that, they have the gall to claim they aren't sexist.
I completely agree and furthermore I find it extraordinary that people still try to paint it the way they do given all the advances in modern science and medicine, none of which seems to even acknowledge that men have a reproductive life too.

Ultimately knowing all this and seeing the lay of the land for many years,
I can really only fight for the rights of my body AND whenever the sexist, misogynistic, radical pro-life mind set rears its collective ugly head and appears to be making inroads into taking away my rights, FIGHT!

Until such times as I see society start making more equal laws and educating men on their rights and responsibilities when it comes to pregnancy and abortion AND see those men actually heed the message I will always support legal medical abortion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 626,278 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I give the men and women equal responsibility and suggest vasectomies to men who don't want to be responsible for children as well.

After thinking about this issue more, I don't see how either side of this is not sexist.
If anything, it is nature that decides who is to be sexist. It is nature that decides that a women has to carry a fetus for 7-9 months, nature that decides who is more involved in a pregnancy, and nature that decides that the man involved is merely a giver of sperm (read, sperm donor). It was not us, it was nature.

If you want to blame anyone or anything for the sexist nature of pregnancy and abortion, then blame mother nature herself. Or better yet, blame God that ultimately created the sexist nature of it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 05:19 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,416 posts, read 8,067,521 times
Reputation: 3764
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
If anything, it is nature that decides who is to be sexist. It is nature that decides that a women has to carry a fetus for 7-9 months, nature that decides who is more involved in a pregnancy, and nature that decides that the man involved is merely a giver of sperm (read, sperm donor). It was not us, it was nature.

If you want to blame anyone or anything for the sexist nature of pregnancy and abortion, then blame mother nature herself. Or better yet, blame God that ultimately created the sexist nature of it all.
The law is sexist as well...you can't seem to see it that way. But both nature and the law are sexist in this case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top