Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
well killing any viable human happens every time a guy jacks off in the shower.. baby goes down the drain... seems crude, but its true... that is a viable human being..that could have been..
in the first few weeks of a pregnancy when abortion usually happens.. the fetus is hardly any more viable than some guy's sperm in a condom..
I can see your point. Religious zealots can find nothing in the bible that forbids abortion. It is supposed to have been a fairly common practice back then, and those against it wanted to keep the tribe growing stronger by numbers, the opposite of what we should be doing today. It had little to do with personal morality back then.
The bible does make comment on it being a sin to waste your seed.
I bring this up because the fetus is becoming more viable earlier in the pregnancy. At some point we will have test tube babies: it is just a matter of time. THere is a whole slew of issues that should be discussed about this.
My thought is - what man is capable of controlling, he should control - that is, both in preventing pregnancies and aborting them.
When a fetus is taken early and 'saved' by the intervention of science, I do not hear religious people protesting that we should not intervene, that if the fetus would have died in utero, it should be allowed to die, that this is God's will. If God gave us the ability to save a life through our own personal choices, He also gave us the ability to take it. You can't have it both ways.
What we have no control over should be left to God. Isn't that the attitude through which religions were first started?
As science progresses religious dogma must change. Not the spirit behind the religion, but dogma has often been proven wrong and left by the wayside. Again, the old testiment says it is ok to stone disobediant kids. What trash!
I think it is positively shocking that a religion does not just as strongly protest against things like Viagra, which frequently encourage more men to have 'fun' sex, while it will penalize women who are stuck with their 'F'-children by forcing them to live through a long, deforming, and painful pregnancy. More trash!
This is just another stupid way that a religion will put down a woman for being sexual, even in today's enlightened age, while men are still encouraged by religion to sew their wild oats.
This is why so many women, once the mainstay of the church, are leaving. People with brains realize the outdated hypocracy of it all.
Dogma prevents people from interfacing with reality. It is not healthy.
It would seem to me that woman who have had abortions are better off, mentally, than those who go through a pregnancy and give up the child to some strangers. It would seem as though the disruption to life and career and the addition expense and the wear and tear on the body should be shared by the man involved. If that were the case, we would not be discussing this.
Could you just imagine a world in which a pill would assist a woman, sexually, perhaps making every woman multiply orgasmic? Could you see a society in which women would chase men for sex, and if there were a pregnancy, it would be put into a pouch of some sort, and the man would have to carry it around with him all day and feed it and bear the expenses, and it would deplete his body of calcium and nourishment, and cause him to have a beer belly and at the end of almost a year of this he would have to be beat up by a professional boxer before the thing was taken away from him?
Come on, this is reality, not some religious fantasy. My fantasy above is much more interesting than all the religious stuff, at least to me it is.
Could you just imagine a world in which a pill would assist a woman, sexually, perhaps making every woman multiply orgasmic?
Every woman I've been intimate with has been multi-orgasmic, I am not.
Quote:
Could you see a society in which women would chase men for sex, and if there were a pregnancy, it would be put into a pouch of some sort, and the man would have to carry it around with him all day and feed it and bear the expenses, and it would deplete his body of calcium and nourishment, and cause him to have a beer belly and at the end of almost a year of this he would have to be beat up by a professional boxer before the thing was taken away from him?
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the times. Women go after men all the time in America, although it is usually in a flirting manner making sure a guy knows they are very interested, rather than the woman flat out initiating sex (that happens too).
Although the woman typically has the burden of carrying the child for 9 months, men are frequently forced by courts to pay for a baby for 18 years. I'd rather have the 9 months myself if choosing between the 2. The man gets to suffer from bank account depletion, high blood pressure, and mental disorders brought on by constant games being played with visitation rights.
Sorry for the dose of reality, but guys get screwed over just as often as women.
Faith is required to believe in God, as faith is required to believe in the big bang "theory". I think both groups have their sane and insane members.
The Big Bang comes from mathematical models not faith. Math is objective not subjective, unlike your little two thousand year old mythology. Now, believing in "god" takes faith, or what I like to call a delusion. You can believe in talking snakes and virgin births all day, but it doesn't make you right.
Last edited by PrettyHateMachine; 08-31-2007 at 07:45 PM..
Maybe I haven’t read enough about this subject yet, but I think I’m missing something fairly basic in the argument. A person’s body belongs to that person alone, man or woman. But apparently when a woman becomes pregnant, she morphs into a mere vessel that carries something to which others of varying ideologies believe they can claim title.
What am I missing?
Last edited by happyappy; 08-31-2007 at 09:10 PM..
Maybe I haven’t read enough about this subject yet, but I think I’m missing something fairly basic in the argument. A person’s body belongs to that person alone, man or woman. But apparently when a woman becomes pregnant, she morphs into a mere vessel that carries something to which others of varying ideologies believe they can claim title.
What am I missing?
True, happyappy, there is a seeming contradiction here. The fact is, of course, we're not talking about "just" the right to your own body. Where to draw the line between a "fertilized egg" and a fully-formed child, is the endless argument.
But if you're really "missing" anything here, it is the simple fact that there's really no comparable situation in the realm of ethics and morals to the situation of a "baby's" body being inside, and dependent on, the "mother's" body. Thus it really isn't completely fair to refer to "my" body---it's more like "our" bodies. The situation has to be judged on its own merits, as nothing similar exists.....
Is this an easy statement for a man to make? And would things be different if MEN got pregnant? You bet they would....I'm just stating the "facts", not their application...
Tell that to a mother who has a miscarriage 6 months into a pregnancy.
there you go redefining words again. A pregnant woman is not a mother.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
