How many men have no clue

a reply to: Quadrivium

Can you expand a little on the following?

Not here and now; it is a pretty long post which you may have missed. But I will link it for you. i think it covers all the relevant aspects well enough.

The only reason I would not get into the Creationism vs. Evolution argument was that is was so obviously off topic, quite an extensive subject, and the poster who wanted to discuss it already had their mind made up. There was no point. This subject is relevant to the thread IMO, as it directly addresses the abortion issue.

While I agree that there are three human beings to consider, what rights are conflicting?

I do believe that a person has reproductive rights, including the right to not make a baby at any particular time. As long as they take precautions (birth control) they are well within their rights. It is only when a child appears that the situation gets more complex... and even moreso if the parents did use birth control and the pregnancy was an accident.

The main difference I see between me and a pro-aboritonist is they want their rights to supersede any rights by any other involved party... and that is simply not acceptable. I am trying to look at all rights involved and strike some sort of balance.

In the small percentage of abortions, due to rape or incest, I understand that the rights of at least two of the three parties will be in conflict. That is what made me change my stance during the course of this thread (I can expound if you would like).

Feel free.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: VierEyes
Who is forcing them?
In 99% of abortions they, and their partner, made a free and willful choice to try and create a new human life.
I care for all human beings and their basic human rights.

Liar. You have a wilful blindspot where the woman is concerned.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

The one thing I would add in is that I don't see any need to enact a "moral punishment" on the woman who accidentally gets pregnant. Nature, IMO, has already done that. There is no reason to worsen the punishment nature has inflicted.

I agree 100%, I just do not find any logic in suggesting it should be OK for a rape victim to get an abortion and not an accidental one. That is where I believe the religious moral clause sneaks in with people suggesting they are not looking at this in a religious sense.

The ideal situation to me would be that in both cases, the mother has the child and is allowed to put it up for adoption. In the case of rape, the rapist pays child support first to the mother during pregnancy and then to the adoptive parents until the child is 18; in the case of accidental pregnancy, both mother and father share the financial burden equally. But we both know we do not live in an ideal society. That's why I personally could live with early term abortion.

I have spelled out before what society can do. We can kumbaya the LBGTQ community which is good, and we end up with 81 genders, pronouns made up on the fly, transmen in women's sports, unable to define a woman, teaching children gender is fluid and then going whatever way they suggest with drugs and possible surgery while they can't even put on the same two socks, and it continues to grow and grow in some chaotic way.

Now apply the same to the term value of life. Boy oh boy could that all get ugly fast if we just open up the gates to suggest all abortions at anytime are OK. I fully understand that drawing a line is not really logical either, but more of a random stop point to prevent a like situation I spelled out above in how we humans tend to go.

It's not a discounting of the child's right to life per se; it is more an acceptance that optimal only exists in fantasy.

You wrote it out above more elegantly than I could do...

a reply to: TheRedneck

I will look back over the post you linked and reply later to the topic of life support/gestation.

On rights:
Would you agree that with our basic human rights comes some responsibility?
If we insist on our rights being upheld, we then have a responsibility not to infringe on another human beings rights.
We can apply this to the point you are making.
I totally agree that all of us (in America at least) have reproductive rights, but this is not what the pro-abortionist are seeking when it come to abortion.
Let me explain:
Once mitosis begins the reproductive part, of reproduction, is complete.
They made a conscious decision to engage in the act of reproduction, knowing the is not a 100% effective form of birth control. The exercised their Reproductive rights, with the understanding they may be successful in the act.
This is where the responsibility comes in, because, at this point, they have already exercised the right they say they are being denied.
Simply put, they don't really want reproductive rights, they already have those. What they actually want is the Right to another human beings life.
This is why I don't understand the 'rights' issue, when it comes to 99% of abortions. If you think about it, it really doesn't make any sense.

ETA:

This part of the current discussion (on rights) falls into where I changed my stance somewhat.
So to expound on that for Redneck and a reply to: Xtrozero:

I always had the stance that a rape or incest victim should carry full term and then give the baby up for adoption if she chose to do so.
I see it a little differently now after reading the many replies in this thread.
There are two reasons for this:
1. She did not have a choice. Her reproductive rights were taken, by force.
2. It also falls into the category of the mothers life being in danger. There is a lot of trauma and mental stress that comes with rape and incest. This, coupled with the hormonal changes she will go through could cause long lasting harm and mental anguish, to her and the new human life she is carrying.
They should receive all of the help they need to deal with the mental and physical damage this act of violence caused them. As I said earlier in a post to Xtrozero, not all people have the same mental fortitude.
I could wish that all were strong enough to overcome such acts of violence but that wouldn't make it so.
Some can and do carry the child full term. Some decide to keep them, some give them up for adoption.
Sadly, some don't have the same mental fortitude and it would cause psychological damage they may carry for the rest of their lives.

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: VierEyes
Who is forcing them?
In 99% of abortions they, and their partner, made a free and willful choice to try and create a new human life.
I care for all human beings and their basic human rights.

Liar. You have a wilful blindspot where the woman is concerned.

Instead of calling names, why don't you try to articulate your response.
Where have I lied?
Where is the blind spot?
Point them out, we will discuss it.

a reply to: Quadrivium

This is where the responsibility comes in, because, at this point, they have already exercised the right they say they are being denied.

Not so simple

Some women didn't consent to being raped
Some women didn't consent to carrying and deliverying a baby that would not survive outside the womb

This is why I don't understand the 'rights' issue, when it comes to 99% of abortions. If you think about it, it really doesn't make any sense.

Many many many, like 50%+ of women getting abortions had used some form of birth control or their partner did.
Is that irresponsible?

Maybe we should stop abortions at their source, Vasectomies for all men until they can prove they are responsible enough to procreate.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
Is that irresponsible?

Yes, they are whores who should have known better, enjoy that gift baby, here's a fruit basket for your trouble.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: VierEyes
Who is forcing them?
In 99% of abortions they, and their partner, made a free and willful choice to try and create a new human life.
I care for all human beings and their basic human rights.

Liar. You have a wilful blindspot where the woman is concerned.

Instead of calling names, why don't you try to articulate your response.
Where have I lied?
Where is the blind spot?
Point them out, we will discuss it.

You never discuss the woman's feelings or her right to bodily autonomy instead of fetal servitude.

The woman's rights should always trump fetal cells. The fetus is a parasite until it is old enough to survive on its own outside the body.

Sex isn't always about reproduction. Reproduction is a side effect of the act. You seem to think it should only be for procreation. Most people disagree.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Not so simple

Some women didn't consent to being raped
Some women didn't consent to carrying and deliverying a baby that would not survive outside the womb

I usually add the "99% of abortions" and usually do a good job of adding it for this simple reason.
I agree with you. I was editing the post above when you posted this.
See here

Many many many, like 50%+ of women getting abortions had used some form of birth control or their partner did.
Is that irresponsible?

Simply put?
Yes, it is irresponsible. We all know the following:
What causes pregnancy.
Where babies come from.
What natures role for the mother is once fertilization occurs.
There are no 100% effective forms of birth control.
Knowing all these, they still decide to engage in the act of reproduction.
If they were not ready, once they succeeded, and still choose to take another humans life, that is irresponsible.

Maybe we should stop abortions at their source, Vasectomies for all men until they can prove they are responsible enough to procreate.

Sounds like a good idea. I would add tubal ligation for the women who aren't ready as well.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Sadly, some don't have the same mental fortitude and it would cause psychological damage they may carry for the rest of their lives.

Should it be illegal if they do not have the same fortitude? How about the fortitude of a 16 yearold that sees her whole life kind of vanish before her eyes as she looks at a positive test? Nothing like going to high school 8 months pregnant.. geez

If abortions are all murder past the mitosis stage then I guess the morning after pill would be murder, and even if a woman misses her birth control pill one day and has sex, but then 20 hours later takes it and you get the same results as a morning after pill that is also murder, by your logic.

When you talk about life changes to the mother I think about my niece who got pregnant at 16. I told my dumb sister that I think she should be on maybe a Norplant months before to at least get her past 5 years and then she can decide what she wants to do, but nope.

The end result was she had the baby, dropped out of school, lived from boy friend to boy friend (what guy wants to marry into a premade family these days) never going in the direction to be a vet that she once dreamed of, and ended up just doing assistant vet work for the last 20+ years. My grand niece isn't much better 20 years later and ended up moving in with my sister, her grand mother, who has been a total wreak for the last 40 years...geez. I'm not saying an abortion would have been better, but I can personally see how my niece having a baby pretty much changed her whole life in not a positive way.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Sounds like a good idea. I would add tubal ligation for the women who aren't ready as well.

Not even close to a vasectomy.
A vasectomy is reversible and it an outpatient thing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

To Quad, your niece is a baby factory. Her quality of life is irrelevant. We must all genuflect at the altar of fetus über alles.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

Maybe we should stop abortions at their source, Vasectomies for all men until they can prove they are responsible enough to procreate.

Love the man hating...lol

Some of you act like women don't get horny and they all are just damsels in distress when it comes to sex. Maybe if women didn't use sex as a controlling tool then they would not get pregnant if they kept their legs closed. Sounds about the same as your statement, doesn't it.

At some point I bet science will fix this and to have a baby will most likely be moved from a right to a privilege as in you will need to apply to have a kid to get your reproduction system turned back on. I can see the uproar then in women protesting its their right to have kids as they do today in protesting it is their right to have abortions...lol

originally posted by: VierEyes

To Quad, your niece is a baby factory. Her quality of life is irrelevant. We must all genuflect at the altar of fetus über alles.

There really isn't a rainbow at the end for most of these abortions if they kept the baby as so many just assume.

a reply to: VierEyes

You never discuss the woman's feelings or her right to bodily autonomy instead of fetal servitude.

You like many others have a problem with facts. That is all I have done, this entire thread, is state facts.
A woman does have rights to HER bodily autonomy. I never once said that they don't.
As far as "fetal servitude", if you understand simple biology, you understand that term is a feelz based cop out.

The woman's rights should always trump fetal cells. The fetus is a parasite until it is old enough to survive on its own outside the body.

Another feelz based moronic statement.
The fetus is as human as you are, the only difference being, you are at a different stage of your life cycle.

Sex isn't always about reproduction. Reproduction is a side effect of the act. You seem to think it should only be for procreation. Most people disagree.

Reproduction is the side effect of the act?????? Do people get impregnated by Pharmaceuticals now??
I absolutely do not think it is, or should, only be used solely for procreation but we all know that it is how ALL mammals reproduce.
All I am saying is that if you are man or woman enough to engage in the act, you should be man or woman enough to accept the responsibility of your choice.
Another human being should not be killed because you made a bad choice.

The American Taliban has spoken!

a reply to: Xtrozero

Should it be illegal if they do not have the same fortitude?

When have I said anything should be legal or illegal? I have already told you, I can't make those decisions.

If abortions are all murder past the mitosis stage then I guess the morning after pill would be murder, and even if a woman misses her birth control pill one day and has sex, but then 20 hours later takes it and you get the same results as a morning after pill that is also murder, by your logic.

When did I say that abortion was murder?
Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

As for the rest of your post, I am sorry about your niece. We need to educate them better (and the parents).

a reply to: Quadrivium

Your position is absurd in the extreme. You are a brick wall of illogic.

It is you who are engaging the feelz. You feelz for the fetus.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Think we are heading that way pretty fast, actually.

a reply to: VierEyes

Your position is absurd in the extreme. You are a brick wall of illogic.

You are denying science because of your feelz, and saying that MY "position absurd in the extreme"?

It is you who are engaging the feelz. You feelz for the fetus.

Actually I'm not.
An understanding of Basic Human Rights and science does not come close to what you are portraying, an extreme FEELZ fest.
Why? Because I can show that the fetus is a Human Being and Human Beings have basic rights?
Human Rights and Science trump your FEELZ, every time.