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.
In other words, you quite passionately want abortion gone out of control from the result of the government banning it. That is, Oldglory, is quite a profoundly foolish thing to do as well as being dangerous to the public health. What a total disgrace to society that would be. Ireland tried doing the very same thing. The country eventually had to reform its wrongful ways by voting to allow abortion on demand up to the 12th week of pregnancy and after that only if the mother's life was in danger or if fetus wasn't viable. 66% of the voters in Ireland, mainly Catholic, voted to control or regulate abortion that way. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, states wanting to control rather than totally ban abortion could use Ireland as guide on how to do it.
But you see...in Oldglory's mind, abortion (murder) is just flat out always wrong, no matter what...so none of that matters. If you're familiar with the trolley thought experiment, in which a person is told of a scenario in which there is a trolley about to run over some number of people tied on the tracks...let's say 3, and you can pull a lever making the trolley change tracks, in which case it will run over one different person. That's fewer people, but you pulling the lever means you'll have caused the train to run over that person.
Oldglory may not know this, but he's using similar reasoning as someone who would refuse to pull the lever, and have three people get run over rather than one. He's thinking in terms of simple rules that must be followed regardless of the situation, or how much unnecessary harm it causes. It's just about the lowest level of moral reasoning you can get while still retaining some kind of moral code. Right below that is just purely impulse-based pack loyalties that wolves engage in, that require no higher thinking whatsoever.
Agree 100%. Your body, your choice, your responsibility for the consequences. No burdening anyone else with the consequences of your choice.
I know what you mean.
I also know the people most burdened with the consequences are the children of bio parents who chose to engage in unprotected sex without the emotional maturity or financial resources to take responsibility for their choices.
30 million children are fed within the public school system. This does not include newborns- age 5-6, not enrolled in school. This does not include the Well- intended do gooders with 501c3 orgs who operate backpack programs whereby children receive bags of non- perishable processed ( think microwave mac and cheese) food so that kids eat over the weekend.
The US spends $ billions feeding the world. Not likely we are going to cease feeding our own.
But you see...in Oldglory's mind, abortion (murder) is just flat out always wrong, no matter what...so none of that matters. If you're familiar with the trolley thought experiment, in which a person is told of a scenario in which there is a trolley about to run over some number of people tied on the tracks...let's say 3, and you can pull a lever making the trolley change tracks, in which case it will run over one different person. That's fewer people, but you pulling the lever means you'll have caused the train to run over that person.
Oldglory may not know this, but he's using similar reasoning as someone who would refuse to pull the lever, and have three people get run over rather than one. He's thinking in terms of simple rules that must be followed regardless of the situation, or how much unnecessary harm it causes. It's just about the lowest level of moral reasoning you can get while still retaining some kind of moral code. Right below that is just purely impulse-based pack loyalties that wolves engage in, that require no higher thinking whatsoever.
Do not and I repeat do not put words in my mouth or misquote me!!! I have often said that if the woman's life is in danger that should be an exception for an abortion. Got it now???????
Honestly I consider this issue as more being none of my business. The sadness many women feel 15 years after they have one about the child that would have been can haunt a lot of them though. It's not a decision I would take lightly when the baby could be adopted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii
Let's just levelset. The right's view isn't pro-life, it's pro-birth. A person can't say they are pro-life if they are against universal health care, against programs to assist with care of infants, and to assist with the well being of children after they are born.
Where do you draw the line? Pay to feed and house half of society their entire lives because they can't or won't work? At some point a helping hand has its limits. I would help the child but not let the mother or father live off perpetual welfare for life.
You made a remark about the woman saying that he told me he wore a condom or something like that and you also said this "Next time wear a rubber jackass". My remark wasn't really directed at you but how odd that a woman wouldn't know if he was wearing one or not. She would also be the jackass for not making sure he was.
There are laws against murder and that's the way I view abortion. But with abortion the murderer escapes scot free not so with any other murderer they go to prison. I also disagree as since the male is the father so he should have a say about it regardless of the fact that it's the female who has to carry the child. If they are 50% owners (and they are) it should be a mutual decision what to do about it. Abortion however should not be an option, IMO. We will just have to agree to disagree.
I would appreciate it if you are going to disagree with me, at least quote me accurately. The post you referred to.
I get it. I tend to argue against the hypocrisy of some posters even when I basically share the opinion.
There is a fundamental flaw in the entire it's her body argument. If it is her body, then they should own it beginning to end. Stop saying that it took 2. That's if one is a true believer in the it's her body line. Me? I am a true believer in it. My daughters know my position. You get pregnant, you own it. Don't come to me and say but but he was supposed use a condom. Own it. Insist upon it. Only 1 person is going to get pregnant. Only one person is personally faced with the choice of what to do about it. The Sperm donor might claim to want a say in it, but it isn't his body that will be forever changed. He was little more than a loaded turkey baster in the equation.
If we want to give men the semi-pass on the deal then we have to allow women the right to have total control over what they do about it. I am all in on giving them control. The male gets to pay his half of the medical bill. Next time wear a rubber jackass.
Note the bold. I said dont come to me and say........
The next time wear a rubber jackass is spot on also.
Finally. When the man carries the baby for 4.5 months, has his body forever changed, and does 50% of the labor. he gets a say. If they went through equal shares of pain, physical change and stigma, I would agree with you. They however dont and never will. The males in most societies get all but a free pass but want something to say about the woman's choice.
Next time wear a rubber or pick a partner you can dominate. I would never allow a male to dominate my daughter's choices. He isn't suffering, his life isn't at risk, his life isn't even impacted at all. Just a minor inconvenience.
Fine you disagree with abortions. Don't get one then. I disagree with lime green or neon paint jobs on anything. I don't buy anything painted as such. I love babies and want to be a grand father, but the choice isn't mine and nor should it be up to the sperm donor. If the woman wants to include Mr. Testicles then fine, because it is her choice.
Like I said I am in the camp of her body her choice, now own it completely. The sperm donor gets to pony up half the cost of whatever the choice is because that is his only part in it. He helped make the mess, he gets to help pay for the clean up. Not decide how the clean up is done.
My daughter had an abortion. I didn't really like it, but I am her dad and in her corner always. Her sperm donor mumbled about wanting to keep it. I asked if he really really wanted me in his life? Mumbles decided an abortion would be better. Accidents happen. Both my girls were accidents. If my wife had wanted abortions it would have ended in divorce, but her choice all the way.
I would appreciate it if you are going to disagree with me, at least quote me accurately. The post you referred to.
I get it. I tend to argue against the hypocrisy of some posters even when I basically share the opinion.
There is a fundamental flaw in the entire it's her body argument. If it is her body, then they should own it beginning to end. Stop saying that it took 2. That's if one is a true believer in the it's her body line. Me? I am a true believer in it. My daughters know my position. You get pregnant, you own it. Don't come to me and say but but he was supposed use a condom. Own it. Insist upon it. Only 1 person is going to get pregnant. Only one person is personally faced with the choice of what to do about it. The Sperm donor might claim to want a say in it, but it isn't his body that will be forever changed. He was little more than a loaded turkey baster in the equation.
If we want to give men the semi-pass on the deal then we have to allow women the right to have total control over what they do about it. I am all in on giving them control. The male gets to pay his half of the medical bill. Next time wear a rubber jackass.
Note the bold. I said dont come to mean say........
The next time wear a rubber jackass is spot on also.
Finally. When the man carries the baby for 4.5 months, has his body forever changed, and does 50% of the labor. he gets a say. If they went through equal shares of pain, physical change and stigma, I would agree with you. They however dont and never will. The males in most societies get all but a free pass but want something to say about the woman's choice.
Next time wear a rubber or pick a partner you can dominate. I would never allow a male to dominate my daughter's choices. He isn't suffering, his life isn't at risk, his life isn't even impacted at all. Just a minor inconvenience.
Fine you disagree with abortions. Don't get one then. I disagree with lime green or neon paint jobs on anything. I don't buy anything painted as such. I love babies and want to be a grand father, but the choice isn't mine and nor should it be up to the sperm donor. If the woman wants to include Mr. Testicles then fine, because it is her choice.
Like I said I am in the camp of her body her choice, now own it completely. The sperm donor gets to pony up half the cost of whatever the choice is because that is his only part in it. He helped make the mess, he gets to help pay for the clean up.
My daughter had an abortion. I didn't really like it, but I am her dad and in her corner always. Her sperm donor mumbled about wanting to keep it. I asked if he really really wanted me in his life? Mumbles decided an abortion would be better. Accidents happen. Both my girls were accidents. If my wife had wanted abortions it would have ended in divorce, but her choice all the way.
I didn't miss quote you I said, "you said something like that". Most pregnancies aren't accidents they happen through irresponsibility.
lol, I can't get an abortion I'm a male in my 70's! I stand by what I said. It's not just the woman's body at stake and the father of the baby should have a say about it as it's half his. I also stand by what I said that abortion should only be a consideration if the mother's physical life is in danger. Once again, we will just have to agree to disagree.
You couldn't be more wrong! Wearing a condom does not create a life it prevents it from being formed. Once the sperm meets the egg and is fertilized it's a life not before that, duh.
The life of a child even if not born yet in not a small matter. Taking their life IS a big matter.
If fertilization is the point at which a "life" exists (and deserves protection, in your view), then you would need to also be opposed to Plan B, IUDs, and most hormonal birth control methods (all of which prevent the implantation of a FERTILIZED EGG into the uterine lining as their primary or secondary mode of action).
I didn't miss quote you I said, "you said something like that". Most pregnancies aren't accidents they happen through irresponsibility.
lol, I can't get an abortion I'm a male in my 70's! I stand by what I said. It's not just the woman's body at stake and the father of the baby should have a say about it as it's half his. I also stand by what I said that abortion should only be a consideration if the mother's physical life is in danger. Once again, we will just have to agree to disagree.
The father of the baby going to gain 30 pounds? Have his skeleton permanently changed? be at risk for diabetes ? Possible die? NO, so his feelings are not really anything more than a trivial matter. When the father has to do 50% of the work, make 50% of the sacrifices and take 50% of the risks then so be it. Here is an idea. Sperm donor wants a say? Ok he has a tumor surgically attached to his testicles. It will grow to 5 to 7 pounds. He carries it all 9 months. If he is willing to do that then he can ask the woman to carry to term. She can still say no. It's her body after all. He can say no to the tumor, it's his body.
Hmmm we should do that to dead beat sperm donors of more than 2 out of wedlock babies.
The father of the baby going to gain 30 pounds? Have his skeleton permanently changed? be at risk for diabetes ? Possible die? NO, so his feelings are not really anything more than a trivial matter. When the father has to do 50% of the work, make 50% of the sacrifices and take 50% of the risks then so be it. Here is an idea. Sperm donor wants a say? Ok he has a tumor surgically attached to his testicles. It will grow to 5 to 7 pounds. He carries it all 9 months. If he is willing to do that then he can ask the woman to carry to term. She can still say no. It's her body after all. He can say no to the tumor, it's his body.
Hmmm we should do that to dead beat sperm donors of more than 2 out of wedlock babies.
Of course the male isn't going to go through the physical changes but what does that have to do with it? I already said that if the mother's life is in danger she should be able to get an abortion so where are you going with this? It's not the males fault he can't carry a pregnancy but the child is still half his.
Oh please, comparing a tumor to a pregnancy? Tumors can be life threatening but a healthy pregnancy isn't. And once again, it isn't just the mother's body but the body of a child also. Why can't you just leave this alone since I asked you if we can't just agree to disagree? Do you like beating a dead horse to death? Does one have to agree with you or you will keep pounding away at them? I never took you for a liberal but you are sure acting like one this issue.
Let's just levelset. The right's view isn't pro-life, it's pro-birth. A person can't say they are pro-life if they are against universal health care, against programs to assist with care of infants, and to assist with the well being of children after they are born.
This is a textbook example of the Strawman fallacy.
It doesn't help you.
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.
