Abortion

LA not everyone would act that way. Your being rather harsh and sexist right there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes a bit harsh i would agree but it was just a reaction to what dwayne said, if your GF has had an abortion go and find someone else? he just wound me up thats all.

i know not all men are neanderthals, most are kind and considerate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Remarks on an interesting sequence of posts

To work backwards, I think ....

I'm not sure it's sexist, per se, Asguard. I don't see a certain degree of generalization in large part because she's responding to a bit of a generalization. Or perhaps I'm taking you wrongly: you don't think "everyone" would act that way? Well, what everyone are we talking about here? The "everyone" that is truly all-encompassing? Well, that transcends the boundaries of LA's response. The "everyone" that would screen women on the basis of abortions? Well, I suppose you have a point, but inquiring about salad is probably the better route for that type of man to take at that point. I'm probably missing something, but for the moment it seems the potential responses only go downhill from there. I mean, what line would you write there? I'm having trouble coming up with a good one.

To the other, LA, I would propose that you might be looking at it wrongly. Sure, the insult might sting at first, but it seems to me she's better off without such a man. Furthermore, if we take our neighbor Dwayne as an example—

—I would go so far as to suggest that the earlier she finds out, the better.

Obviously, it is a woman's business, and if a relationship is founded on a state of love and trust, that information will come up in due course, and it will be received and regarded properly. The flip-side is that if the woman only finds out how deeply judgmental her partner is after she marries him, the victimization becomes incalculable. Not only will he have kept something from her in order to get close to her, but that dishonesty will denigrate her constantly throughout the relationship.

If a man really feels that way, he ought to drop it into the conversation before the appetizer arrives. Best a woman stays clear of a man who looks at her as a meat factory.

Which brings me to confess that I really am puzzled by Mr. Rabon's outlook. Increased the inbreeding rate of industrialized nations? I'm sorry, but what? I mean, seriously, man: What?

Additionally, while there is some sentiment against childbirth, I think you're overstating it somewhat. There certainly are some women who don't want to put their bodies through pregnancy and childbirth. And, frankly, it's difficult to take issue with that. But the most part of the social trend against childbirth that I'm aware of is actually about the number of children people have. Sustaining the population equals one child per parent. A theoretical married couple that never gets divorced and never remarries maintains the population by having two children, one to replace each parent. Having only one child (or zero children) theoretically reduces the population. There are some who would argue the human species would do better with a lower population, and numbers float between 3.5 to 5 billion, depending on who you ask. This is an issue about resource and environmental sustainability. And that's all well and fine, and it's academic theory. But even so, I really do find it absurd that some people have so many children as they do. Some of them just make decisions I don't agree with; because adoption is an unacceptable idea to them, they decide to try fertility drugs and end up with eight children. Even stranger to me are people who have their eight children one at a time. Think about that for a moment: three hundred twenty weeks of pregnancy; that's over six years. Ten years of infants around the house. That is a very difficult proposition.

What's that? A more reasonable number? What, four? Five? If that's what a woman wants to do, that's her decision. I personally find it socially irresponsible. And something that really confuses me is the connection between religion and rampant reproduction. I've heard half-assed explanations for Catholics and no useful explanations for Latter-Day Saints.

Given that a woman's obligations to parenthood remain greater than the man's even beyond pregnancy and childbirth, I would suggest that your argument that women should be having more children, in addition to being detrimental to the species, is at its root misogynistic°. As Susanne Pichler wrote:

Indeed, as she pointed out, Justice Blackmun, who authored the Court's opinion in Roe, noted that the decision was "a step that had to be taken as we go down the road toward the full emancipation of women". The right to make childbearing decisions has improved women's quality of life in our society. And bearing in mind the slogan, "Every child a wanted child", we should remember that this improved quality of life also makes her capable of delivering better care to any children she does have.

But you, apparently, would take all of that away in order to protect against a truly bizarre, superstitious concern: an increased inbreeding rate in industrialized nations. Especially in the rapidly-globalizing world community, increased inbreeding rates in industrialized nations would suggest more about people's criteria for lovers and spouses than anything else.

In an earlier post, I suggested that "one of the things that needs to be addressed is whether or not men should be obliged to carry around signed affidavits attesting that they will support any child they help conceive". Originally, I made the suggestion simply to make the point about a man's responsibility in creating a child at a time when I felt some people were focusing too much on the woman's role. You've given me yet another reason to consider the notion.

In the meantime, perhaps someday you will come to understand that love is a far more powerful thing than picking women like you're shopping for a car. Until then, you really are missing out. Seriously, there is a state of love and trust between people that I would do damn near anything for. And it seems you don't want it at all.

People are more than machines, else all our struggles are for naught. Even this one. After all, what's one aborted machine, more or less?
____________________

Notes:

° misogynistic — I suppose I should consider the possibility that such an outlook is not specifically misogynistic. One could, theoretically, hold the whole of the human species in such low esteem. Of course, in the abortion debate, we so rarely address anything remotely related to the role of the male in the human endeavor that we should not be surprised that people see misogyny afoot.

Works Cited:

Pichler, Susanne and Deborah Golub. "Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact". PlannedParenthood.org. Updated May 16, 2007. See http://www.plannedparenthood.org/newsroom/press-releases/roe-v-wade-6578.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really scars? I guess maybe later in the pregnancy, but the people that I know who have done it all took this chemical that caused the uterine lining to shed, just like a miscarriage or period even. I don't think abortions are favorable. I don't want to have a baby right now, but I don't think children are bad.

 

I agree with fully educating people on any decision that involves a medical choice, but I think its stupid to ban people from the clinic. Its none of the clinics business if the woman is desrtoying her uterus or not as long as she is informed.
I also find what this says kind of offensive. Intellectual women are too old to operate. I consider myself to be a woman of intellect and i don't think I would have a problem concieving and don't most intellectual women have children? And why would a woman who has not had an abortion be a better person than one who has? To be honest is it really any of her boyfriends business it has nothing to do with him.

 

Thanks for letting me know that I'm such a bad pick. I had a hack job done on me when I had an abortion and I didn't have any problem concieving the other three. Biologically it makes more sense for girls to get pregnant at about 14 or 15, but taking care of a baby on your own in this society...not so easy for a young teen.
And yes Cutsie, intellectual women can and do have children, calm down.
I believe the population here is stable which is a good thing, I think.

 

...

uhhhh wowwwowoaow,w.w..a.w.w. wow.

so uh okay. i guess the concept of love doesn't really mean anything here -- only the concept of procreation. nice. just dump any woman who can't birth a child, it's cool. who cares if she happens to be a good catch in all other regards. but we need to procreate, dammit! that's the only thing that matters in this world in which human beings are already usurping too many resources!!!!

"oh, sorry, you had a cyst burst in your fallopian tube and now your chances of having a child are hampered? sorry! i'm going to have to let you go." jeez. not the same scenario but you're saying essentially the same thing -- that a woman is only worth the chances that she can birth kids.

i don't think we're going to run out of human beings anytime soon. it is not a big godamn deal, on a global scale, if some couples in industrialized countries choose not to have kids. go adopt one from another country... there's really no shortage of people in the world.

 

I don't think anyone needs to get too bent out of shape - this Rabon is the same guy who has in other threads argued that, for example, the Earth's rotational axis is steadily tipping, so that in earlier (Egyptian) times the North Pole pointed directly at the sun.

Given his needs, it probably would be better for him to pop the abortion question on the first date.

The flip side of that is something that kind of makes sense: I've known women to put bumper stickers on their cars that read "No sex with pro-lifers".
That seems reasonable to me, actually. Protects both sides and all parties.

(They had to take the stickers off - lots of vandalism. Pro-lifers can be sort of nasty, apparently).

 

!

i like iceaura.

 

I've known plenty of couples who broke up for that very reason. One wanted kids, and the other didn't or couldn't have them. You can make light of the desire to have kids, but love and sex are nothing but side effects of the need for procreation.

Are you saying that 99% of the women you've dated and 75% of the ones you know have had abortions? Wow. I don't know any woman who's had an abortion. At least as far as I know. Of course, it doesn't come up in conversation that much.

 

This is such an emotive issue and falls between all the grey and intersecting areas of belief, values, politics, ethics and legislation. There also seem to be many contradictory views and one in particular (not necessarily expressed in this thread/forum) that troubles me. Why is it that almost all the people against 'choice' as in "baby killing" a blastocyst are equally in favour of 'capital punishment' as in "adult killing"?
Wing nuts of all persuasions state your case.

 

Why is it that all the people in favor of killing babies are against killing convicted murderers? Do you only get pleasure from killing the weak and innocent? Does it warm your heart to see the guilty escaping their just punishment while innocent babies are riped to shreds before even having the chance to escape their mother's wombs?

 

one problem with your flip the person your responding to used the phrase almost you used all which is false

 

in the same vein, i have known couples who have stayed together despite the fact that one or both of them could not have kids. in this day and age, there are other options anyway. but sometimes people who do only want to conceive the natural way and can't still stay together... so those people do value love over procreation. it goes both ways, i suppose.

 

I seem to recall a girl who got pregnant via a teacher back in high school aborted the child. But that may have just been one of those high school rumors.

 

What do you have to say about the millions of children in the world that are abused and neglected? A child that is raised in violent environment has a higher probability of ending up on death row. I think this world would be a better place if some of these children never existed. I am not saying that every person that had a bad childhood is going to grow up to be a criminal, but a large percentage of the violent offenders in the U.S penal system didn’t receive the care and guidance that they should have had when they were children. What is the point of condemning a child to a miserable existence when you can just abort it? As I said in a previous post, you right wing Christian conservatives have an ideology that is based on misery and conserving the ignorance of humanity. You are not pro-life, you are pro-misery.

 

Unanswered questions

Killing babies is a completely different issue. We're talking about embryos and fetuses.

One of the things that irritates me about your rhetoric rhetoric is that, so far, nobody who uses the phrase "life begins at conception" or calls abortion "baby killing" has addressed certain relevant questions about the implications of such outlooks.

A woman miscarries. If life begins at conception, we should, then, investigate this death under unknown circumstances. How much money and how many hours are you willing to spend investigating every miscarriage that occurs? (#1734027/59)

• • •​

Now, the premise justifying the anti-abortion argument is the assertion that life begins at conception, and therefore the organism is endowed with certain, inalienable rights, including primarily the right to life.

Would [women] be willing to collect [their] own menses for monthly review by a qualified healthcare professional? Sign, on a regular basis, documents for the public record under penalty of perjury declaring that [they] have had no sexual contact between certain dates?

What kind of taxes would you be willing to pay to establish the relevant bureaucracy and enforce laws based on the premise that life, with its inalienable rights, begins at conception? (#1734295/79)​

Avoidance of these questions only reiterates that the abortion debate is more about exercising authority over women than it is about "babies".