[General Battuta]

I think that's a bit uncalled for. My own derision towards him is already pushing it a bit. We should be fair-minded.

It's not that he's ignorant or stupid. Just that a lot of his beliefs, and the reasoning behind them, appears that way to me.

[TESLA]

That's a logical fallacy, TESLA. The fetus could also be the next Hitler/Stalin/etc. Most likely, it's just another schmuck that's going to grow up to be a criminal after 18 years in the horrific fostercare system.

I had already stated that it could easily go either way.

I know a few people who were adopted by a fostercares system. All are doing great. Not screwed up in any way whatsoever.
All lead very happy lives. People could just as easy grow up to be a criminal in a normal household. The argument you make is false. It all depends to a large extent on how you were raised, by whom, without getting in a whole nature vs nurture debate. If you come from a broken home and do you have your two parents with you, chances are you could be a bit mixed up in the head.

IMHO, adoption is a much more disgusting practice than abortion.

at least it gives the individual a chance at life. Nothing disgusting about it

Even if the child ends up in a wonderful, loving home at a very young age and stays there permanently, not all is well. You end up with perfectionists with self-esteem in the ****ter wondering what's so wrong with them their own parents didn't want them who then spend all their time desperately trying to make sure their adoptive parents never for a second regret their decision. (I know too many girls adopted from China.)

This could happen in any household, parents trying to put their failings and ambitions on their children.

Aaaanyway. I still don't think it's relevant when life starts. It's a stupid argument that no one can win and doesn't address the unwanted parasitic relationship of a foreign entity taking up residence inside someone's body aspect of it.

It is unfair to call it an unwanted parasitic relationship when pregnancy is in a league of its own. Symbiosis is more correct.

[TESLA]

Women want the freedom of self-determination that men are biologically granted. Even the most conservative women want it. And they have an inalienable right to it.

Just interested here, with your response. Just play a bit of devil's advocate here: What if the female did not want to carry the baby, but the male was willing to take over, raise and love the child after birth?


Should the male, have any say in the issue, (since it does take two to tango) or is it a completely female choice?

[General Battuta]

It's the woman's choice until the baby is born. If the male was willing to have a functioning uterus and vagina implanted, receive the fetus, and carry it to term, sure, he could do that.

Unless that was possible, it's the woman's call. Her body, her choice.

And it's not a symbiosis if the parent doesn't get anything out of it.

Look, I feel that a lot of the more conservative views in this thread come from inexperience. (Not all, by all means.) When I was single and adolescent I felt pretty conservative about abortion too. If we can't kill babies after birth, I'd ask, why before?

Then I got into a committed, monogamous, loving relationship, and I found myself thinking: what if she did get pregnant, and abortion were illegal? Would I be able to watch this woman I loved suffer through nine months of crippling misery, leading up to a terrifying and unwanted trauma, followed by years of mental, physical, and economic consequences? Depression? Shame at being a young mother? Educational and job-market handicaps? An end to her athletic career? Hatred and disgust towards this child she never wanted?

And suddenly I felt that abortion was the only moral choice.

I feel that many people here would be changed by a close relationship with a woman who did not want children.

[TESLA]

It's the woman's choice until the baby is born. If the male was willing to have a functioning uterus and vagina implanted, receive the fetus, and carry it to term, sure, he could do that.

Unless that was possible, it's the woman's call. Her body, her choice.

So should a former wife of a man be intitled to his stored and frozen sperm, even if he does not want to have another child

(happened in the high court recently)

[General Battuta]

My immediate instinct is 'no'. Related how?

[TESLA]

My immediate instinct is 'no'. Related how?

Curiosity

Like you said, if a female does not want to carry the child, even if her partner would raise it, feed it, etc,etc. Then naturally it should follow that the male have the same rights and not allow any of his sperm to be used without consent.

[General Battuta]

The issue is the nine months of pregnancy. The male never has to deal with that.

[TESLA]

The issue is the nine months of pregnancy. The male never has to deal with that.

If your arguing that a women has the right to make the choice, then surely so does the male. If not, are you not simply reversing the discrimination?

Why must the male be forced to pay for the child when its born if he does not wish to support or have anything to do with it, if its an 'unwanted parasite'

Male may not deal with nine months of pregnancy, but could be dealing with a lifetime of financial payouts.

[General Battuta]

 

That's not an issue I've commented on here, so I'm not sure why you're ascribing an opinion to me - especially when I just said 'no' to your last question...

[Liberator]

We agree that abortion should be minimized.

Yes

-- Your proposed solution is to build better support networks for mothers.

Yes

-- My objection is that, first, it's impossible to ask humans to abstain from such a fundamentally hard-wired behavior; and second, that this still shackles women to a parasitic organism they never asked for and never consented to (women don't choose to be born women!)

The consent is implicit by they participation in the activity that can lead to the creation of said organism.  One of the qualities that makes us human is the ability to put our instincts aside and not be ruled by them.  The implication has been made that the instinct for sex is somehow separate from our instinct to see after our own continued survival and well being.

No they don't ask to be born women.  But contrary popular notion that there is no difference between the sexes, each carries with it a certain responsibility in both sex and the aftermath of that activity.  The female is nominally expected to carry to term, bear and see to the initial raising of the child, the male is nominally expected to see that the female is free from her survival needs to do her part then work with her to raise the child.

-- As a compromise, I would endorse such support networks. If you want to encourage women to carry babies to term, fine, go for it. But women need to have shame-free access to abortions if need be. You are a man; your closest experience to imagining pregnancy probably came from watching the Alien movies. You should empathize with women who find the idea of something growing in their abdomen repulsive and horrifying. Birth is painful, potentially crippling, and viscerally unpleasant.

In third world levels of medicine perhaps, but proper medical care minimizes the potential aftereffects of birth.  Hence why I am against home births.

In my experience, limited though it is, if a woman feels that the child that she is nurturing in her womb is repulsive and horrifying, those feelings stem from something attached to the child and not the child itself, as a unborn child is very embodiment of innocence, and she should receive such counseling as is needed to shed whatever is cause the feelings of revulsion.  Contrary to physical health, the mental health of most everyone is not something considered by modern medicine.

Also, while I'll continue to read this thread with great interest, I'm not going to post anything further.  Obviously, I'm a intellectual degenerate who isn't worth of occupying the high spaces with the rest of the gods.

[General Battuta]

Liberator, please read other people's posts, okay?

Women never consented to be able to become pregnant. If given the choice I imagine most women would want conscious control over the pregnancy issue. That control is now available, if not in an ideal form.

And read this.

And you're right: part of what makes us human is our ability to overcome our instincts and genetic heritage. Which is why it's so important that women be able to put aside the shackles of their genetically predetermined role and be truly free.

As for your second point, you're basically saying 'women who want abortions are crazy.' I refer you to my my earlier post about the value of being in a loving relationship. Since you describe yourself as someone with no experience in relationships, I imagine you aren't qualified to judge, and you're basically talking out of your ass.

[Mongoose]

I don't really feel like chiming in with anything else at this exact moment, but with all due respect, Battuta, repeatedly linking to that page isn't really going to change anyone's mind on anything.  I could just as easily link to a whole bunch of anecdotes from women who were all for legalized abortion, who indeed had abortions themselves, yet later went on to become prominent figures speaking out against abortion (including Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade), but I know that that wouldn't shift your opinion in the least, either.  Neither those nor your link would do much more than side-track the main debate that's going on here.

[General Battuta]

The intent is not to change anyone's opinion. I would be happy to read anecdotes you post as well.

The point is to recognize that many women want this freedom. The women you cite (who have become anti-abortion) still have the freedom to not have abortions. These women, who remain anti-choice but still have abortions, have the freedom to have abortions even while morally opposed. I see that freedom as extraordinarily valuable, and these anecdotes are intended to illustrate it.

How could we ban abortion when so many people who would apparently support that ban still go and get abortions? It seems to suggest that the very foundation of anti-abortion activism is based on the fact that 'well, I would never need to get an abortion anyway!' (which, incidentally, is why so many men are suspect in their views on the topic)

Expanding the range of freedoms available to human beings is, as I see it, far more valuable than constricting it - especially when there is no consensus that the acts being permitted are in any way damaging or immoral to society at large.

[TESLA]

 

It's the woman's choice until the baby is born. If the male was willing to have a functioning uterus and vagina implanted, receive the fetus, and carry it to term, sure, he could do that.

Unless that was possible, it's the woman's call. Her body, her choice.

I was directing the question and you because of this statement. Naturally males cannot give birth. But it still requires two people for conception to take place. So should the male not have a say in the matter?

And it's not a symbiosis if the parent doesn't get anything out of it.

As your doctor, it is symbiosis. Regardless of what you 'get anything' from it.

Look, I feel that a lot of the more conservative views in this thread come from inexperience. (Not all, by all means.) When I was single and adolescent I felt pretty conservative about abortion too. If we can't kill babies after birth, I'd ask, why before?

Thats speculation on the experience of the conservative views. Although generally, i am a lot more left leaning, like a lot of people i know, on this one issue, people tend to be much more conservative.

Then I got into a committed, monogamous, loving relationship, and I found myself thinking: what if she did get pregnant, and abortion were illegal? Would I be able to watch this woman I loved suffer through nine months of crippling misery, leading up to a terrifying and unwanted trauma, followed by years of mental, physical, and economic consequences?

Where is your evidence of years of mental and physical pain?

Economic consequenes, yes their will be, but there is also childrens allowance to help in these matters.

Depression? Shame at being a young mother?

Society has moved on in many parts, young mothers do not face the shame that used to exist. I know of this from a very good friend of mine.

Educational and job-market handicaps?

Many educational institutes have a creche or on site accomadation of young mothers to help them keep studying. Many companies also have day-care.

Hatred and disgust towards this child she never wanted?

Adoption. Give the child to loving couples who cannot have children.

[General Battuta]

Are you trying to tell me what my girlfriend should think? If she says that having a child would make her deeply unhappy for years, then I'm inclined to believe her rather than you.

As for your other points - no, the disadvantages that young mothers face have not been erased. A simple glance at statistics about why women leave the workforce is evidence enough for that. There has been progress, and it's good progress, but both the economic problems and the cultural stigma remain.

[TESLA]

Are you trying to tell me what my girlfriend should think? If she says that having a child would make her deeply unhappy for years, then I'm inclined to believe her rather than you.

I never said anything about what your girlfriend should think. You and me both know well, that our girlfriends are well capable of thinking for themselves! All be it, certain times to the month, it may not be the most logical..... 

If having a child would make her or you unhappy, there are other options to prevent pregnancy occuring in the first place. Like the snip 

As for your other points - no, the disadvantages that young mothers face have not been erased. A simple glance at statistics about why women leave the workforce is evidence enough for that. There has been progress, and it's good progress, but both the economic problems and the cultural stigma remain.

Can you show me these statistics? Are you sure that women dont choose to leave the workforce to concentrate on raising kids at a young age. Maybe a career break?

The cultural stigma may be there where your from. Where i live, yes it is seen as unfortunate, not the ideal situation, but there is no discrimatnion of stigma attached to these ladies.

[Mongoose]

The point is to recognize that many women want this freedom. The women you cite (who have become anti-abortion) still have the freedom to not have abortions. These women, who remain anti-choice but still have abortions, have the freedom to have abortions even while morally opposed. I see that freedom as extraordinarily valuable, and these anecdotes are intended to illustrate it.

That may have been your intent while posting those, but all they provided to me were a rather disgusting example of hypocrisy (a flaw which I'm certainly not immune to myself).  I have very little respect for the individuals portrayed in them, although I do feel sympathy for the fact that they saw that action as their only option at the time.

How could we ban abortion when so many people who would apparently support that ban still go and get abortions? It seems to suggest that the very foundation of anti-abortion activism is based on the fact that 'well, I would never need to get an abortion anyway!' (which, incidentally, is why so many men are suspect in their views on the topic)

I would not say that a handful of individual anecdotes suggest anything beyond the actions of those individual persons; indeed, one could just as easily cite instances of women in tough straits who decided to go ahead and have their children.  As for the views of men, while it's true that we can't have that experience of carrying a child, that's obviously something that's through no fault of our own; all we can do is take a look at the situation presented to us and determine what we feel is right as best we can.  I'd like to think that's what I've tried to do.

Expanding the range of freedoms available to human beings is, as I see it, far more valuable than constricting it - especially when there is no consensus that the acts being permitted are in any way damaging or immoral to society at large.

It really is a question of freedom, isn't it?  Yet that's another area where we apparently fundamentally disagree.  You see abortion as giving an additional freedom to a particular subset of humanity.  I, however, see it as constricting the most fundamental right that we as human beings possess: the right to live, to have a chance at plotting our own course through life.  That's why I can never compromise about any arguments regarding not wanting a "parasitic organism," or "lack of consent" (which I've already addressed in another form), or anything along those lines.  For me, life trumps all other concerns.

(And by the way, I never saw any of the Alien movies. )

[General Battuta]

Unfortunately, human beings are really, really bad at putting themselves in the shoes of others. Psychologists call this 'egocentric cognition' and it's most famously demonstrated by an experiment involving the whistling of common tunes.

I just can't understand the 'life trumps all other concerns' argument when many of the fetuses being aborted are indistinguishable from the billions that naturally fail (or are only a few weeks past that stage.) Sure, there's the question of intent, but...every single implanted embryo is a unique, precious person. Yet billions of them vanish without ever getting a chance at life. If a few more vanish due to human intent, why does that matter? If I had never been born, well, then, I guess that would be a bummer - but everyone else who is born is unique and precious too. My own presence or absence only matters to me. And the only reason it matters is because I was lucky enough to live. Billions of others weren't, largely for natural reasons. Had I been aborted, well, I wouldn't care, would I? It just wouldn't be a big deal.

It's like getting upset about the failed formation of whatever planet used to be between Mars and Jupiter. It probably would've been a pretty cool, pretty unique planet. But nobody cares that it didn't make it, simply because, well, it didn't make it! And Planet X wasn't formed either, and neither were ten billion other possible planets that might have been.

Sure, nobody blew up that planet while it was still forming (well, probably.) But it illustrates why we don't mourn over all the fetuses that never make it naturally. They had the potential to be beautiful human beings, but that potential was snuffed out by accident. No one cries over them. The difference you'd cite, of course, is that fetuses aren't being aborted by accident...and no, they're not. But I don't really see how they have more of a right to life than all those who die accidentally. They're all unique individuals.

There's a higher freedom to consider here, though. And that is the freedom to hold a view about morality and the world. If someone else doesn't believe the same way you do about the right to life, why do you have the right to impose your views on them? Isn't it the height of arrogance to believe that only you have correctly analyzed the world and synthesized a system of morality?

Conservatives do not have a monopoly on 'good' and 'right' and 'life-affirming.' Those with differing viewpoints can claim those values just as firmly.

[TrashMan]

If people like Mongoose and TESLA want to define human life as beginning at conception, fine. But don't force that view on me or my friends. Practice it in your own lives rather than trying to enshrine it in legislation.

Why not? Isn't that what EVERYONE is doing?
Aren't people who want abortion legalized doing the same - pushing their own agenda/beliefs, enshrine it into a legislation.

How is not wanting a foreign entity leeching off your body not a medical issue? Also, when men have to be responsible after knocking someone up, then you can *****. As it is now, only women have to deal with it, and it's men who make up the vast majority of morons crying "take responsibility for your actions!"

Bull****.
Men have to take equal responsiblity - if not more. They have to take care of the child and mother. If they decide to bail on the girl they should be friggin castrated...no, hung from the highest tree by their balls and THEN castrated.

I think we're just working from fundamentally different grounds here. I don't know why anyone would care about a bundle of cells that much. There are billions of them. Billions have been wasted, billions more will be. A few more or less is irrelevant. Perhaps it's murder, but it's a commonplace and harmless kind.

You know, if you have been talking about humans, it the above would stil lapply. I mena, humans are jsut a bunch of cells. nothing special. There's billions of them and many die each die. A few more don't make a difference...

I sincerely hope your world never comes to pass, Mongoose. You ask for the restriction of a fundamental freedom (self-determination) and the fundamental enslavement of women to a biological flaw they never asked for. I hope that such inequity will never be enshrined in law or in culture.

  fundametal freedom    enslavement    Oh, that's rich.