Is Abortion a right someone should have?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by hug-a-tree, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Wrong! I have consistently argued against seeing everything through the lense of hetero/homo, in fact to see anything through the lense of hetero/ homo. If anything, I have been arguing for removing these barriers and making these feelings/ bonds available to everybody. In short for making sexuality fluid as it naturally is.

    The extent to which it has been done, yes it does. Everything has been affected today by the ancient mechanism to 'upgrade procreation'. Someone who is speaking pragmatically from with in the system, and has accepted the system as the natural reality, will not see this.

    I have cared to look at things from outside, and when you do you get to see how everything is a farce and should not be there.

    Had we lived according to our nature there would have been no need to stop procreation through any means at all.

    Men and women were compulsorily forced into socio-sexual contracts with each other (the reasons for which social pressures like social masculinity and ridicule were built) because we needed more children.

    Today, we don't need more children because with science, the infantile fatality rate has become negligible and life expectancy has increased several folds.

    For someone like you (and everybody else here actually), who is working from within the structures created by societies milleniums ago, the job at hand is to use technology and things like abortions to avoid the problems arising out of the hordes of male-female sex that has been artificially created by the age old (and now accepted as natural) social pressures to which the heterosexual society has tremendously added.

    That seems to be the only pragmatic and logical thing to do for you.

    I'm going to the root of the problem and saying, REMOVE THE PRESSURES' and you won't really have a problem. This of course requires opening up our minds from our limited hetero/ homo perspectives which sees everything relating with procreation with heterosexuals, and everything related with same-sex bonds with 'homosexuals'.
    Please watch what you say. I have never vouched for buggery, eventhough I am not against it. I just couldn't care less.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    If your not for condoms or abortions are you saying that everyone should just have kids like endlessly?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    I heard about how the book freakanomics explains why the crimerate never exploded in the US as was predicted.

    It was because of Roe vs Wade

    It made abortion more accessible for the people at the low end of society preventing generations to be born of people without opportunities and with a tendency to resolve to crime to survive. He postulates that legal abortion had a beneficial impact on crime rates.

    (just heard this, never read the book except for another chapter why he explains why drug dealers live with their mother).
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member


    Well abortion is legal, so I dunno. He's saying that if we stop abortion there will be more crime?
  8. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    As an immediate/ superficial prevention yes it will work, if we ignore the fact that we are taking a life.

    But it will be just another artificial and unnatural social apparatus to support and sustain heterosexuality.
  9. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    Not to sound pushy or anything, but are you going to answer me?
  10. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Sorry hug-a-tree, I was going to answer you soon.

    I like the name a lot. I would love to hug a tree. I care a lot for them. I just live too far from nature.

    O.K. look at it this way.

    If the society did not pressurise us to be exclusively heterosexual, and if same-sex bonds were not so denigrated and were actually institutionalised and social spaces and customs (not in the gay space but in the mainstream) were created to accomodate such feelings, most people would participate in them.

    Same-sex feelings are there in people for a purpose, and our society is a fool to throw it away. Overpopulation is just one of the drawbacks.

    Just imagine a scenario where in the first part of the youth men and women grow up with their own kind and bond with one of their own kind. When they become mature and ready to settle down with the opposite sex permanently and start a family, they can then move to that phase. For those who are happy in their same-sex bonds can stay in them.

    This is how most ancient societies after the marriage instition started, worked (including the Greeks).

    In the present scenario, it will not do away with the need for birth control but greatly reduce it. But this is only a side benefit. Same-sex bonds, like the opposite sex one's have a lot of biological value for men and women.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2006
  11. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned


    The crime wave that everybody expected in the US never came because of the decision in Roe vs Wade.

    He analyzed what happened, not what will happen.
  12. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member


    but condoms prevent the further creation of life, not in its prevailing....
  13. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member


    that verse was in response to this statement:
    I think every life has a potential. I cringe when people say that the unborn child isn't anything. I believe that life starts at conception and I always believe that it's wrong to take away an innocent life.
  14. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    I mean, instead of supporting 'heterosexuality' (I don't mean male-female sex) with high technology and other dubious means like abortions, the society should use the technology to free us from 'heterosexuality'. The social pressures and exclusion of same-sex bonds from social institutions (including religious ones) is useless now.
  15. ZenDrake come to the darkside Registered Senior Member


    Give it a handful of decades there buddy,
    I see a trend with society leaning towards this.
    Look at the difference in social mores from 1900 to 2000.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Who says that, though?

    You seem to be arguing against a position which nobody takes. Even the most rabid right-to-chooser doesn't argue that an unborn child is worthless. Unlike you, they balance the rights and interests of the parent(s) against the rights and issues of the unborn child and allow for the possibility that where these interests are in conflict, the mother's interests may prevail.

    One problem with right-to-lifers is that they are so simplistic. Everything supposedly has a black and white answer for them. They never treat cases individually.


    What about the classic moral question of killing one person to save ten? Would you allow one innocent person to die if doing so would save ten others? From what you have said, your answer would seem to be "no". If that's actually the case, we can go no further. If, on the other hand, your answer is "yes", then perhaps we can progress to talk about abortion in more depth.
  17. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    the fact of the matter is... if we dont make more babies... the world will go to those people that do... period.

    and our western cultures are killing off our people by promoting free sex... and abortions for the baby.

    the price one is supposed to pay for sex... is marrage.!!!!, and children...!!!
    by design.. as such leads to lots of babies.... thats why we are all here.

    birth control may make life easier for the young slut on the go...

    but it does nothing for the future of our species...

  18. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    If the current trend (heterosexualisation and marginalisation of same-sex bonds as 'homosexuality) continues, I believe that day will never come --- we'll go in the opposite direction of this. In short, we'll go the bonobo way.

    Also if you look at 1900 and 2000, (at least of a non christian society), you'll find that today same-sex bonds between men have suffered a great deal because of westernisation/ heterosexualisation/ homosexualisation (which carries with it all the baggages of christianity with them) of these societies.

    In 1900 same-sex bonds in my country used to be common and practised by mainstream men. There were just enough social spaces, opportunities and customs. Of course they were not institutionalised but because the nature of the society was the natural --- gender seggregated one. Everyone had to get married unless their was a valid excuse --- like spiritual pursuits.

    Today with westernisation/ heterosexualisation the male-only spaces are being turned into mixed-sex heterosexual spaces, and all the older same-sex customs and opportunities are being severely attacked as being 'homosexual' and thus condemned outside the mainstream into a feminine third-sex cult.

    The media is enforcing casual male-female sex on the young and all this makes same-sex needs really impossible within the mainstream.

    This suits a handful of feminine gendered real homosexual guys, but for the rest it means saying goodbye to their same-sex needs.
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    You're right here! In fact this intense competition was the reason that Christianity had built in provisions against same-sex activities. Because if we are to accept them compeletly as is provided for in the nature, few people would like to procreate --- which would mean that negative religions like Islam who are anyway waiting to rule the planet, will wipe out everybody else.

    There are two options in this scenario:

    - Either to marginalise same-sex bonds as 'homosexual' with extreme social pressures and mechanisms, thereby limiting the access of the majority to these bonds by making them extremely costly --- socially speaking --- as the heterosexual society is doing.

    - Or to make marriage compulsory for all people (unless a valid excuse is there) unrelated to their sexual feelings, but allowing the first phase of their life to make use of their same-sex needs by institutionalising same-sex bonds in this phase. Much like the Greeks did.

    The third option is if we could somehow change violent and aggressive religions into peaceful ones --- by bringing in changes in them, or take away their power, and also rescue people from them.
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    If we would make more babies in the west we would lower our living standards. More people and lower living standards will create social unrest. Social unrest is the breeding ground for fanaticism.

    We will have become them.

    We lost anyway.

    Let's just try to lower the inequality in the world and create a stable social environment for ALL. It is not us against them. Nowadays we live in one world only. And eventually we have to share it.

    I just wonder if it is possible considering human nature. But maybe we can first try before doing something new opposed to something old and bound to fail.
  21. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member


    Oh! OKay I think I see what your saying. A lot of homosexuals are in the closet and are getting married because they believe that their feelings are sinful. I'm I right? There running from there gayness pretty much.
    So if all the homosexuals in the world were more okay with themselves, there'd be less babies in this world. And homosexuals can always adopt a child.
    I was reading this book...I think it was "stupid white men", well anyway Michael Moore said that nature always seems too take care of itself. So maybe homosexuality is in humans so we can have less babys and more elbow room?

    And thanks, I like your name as well. I've always been interested in Buddhism.
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the biggest problem with this is national pride
    the concept of "our country is the best". and that goes for any country, russia, america, china, and all the rest.
  23. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    yeah, well I was reading this magazine and it said "prevailing" sounded good to me. Ok ok ok I'll use prevent. You catch my drift though.

Share This Page