the problem with abortion and stem cell research

[Welshidiot]

If she is not willing to risk her life, she should not be made too.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, I believe it should be expanded to: "If a human is not willing to risk their life, they should not be made to."

 

[Nashy19]

This is slightly off-topic but I'd like to know how important other people consider these things.

1. Keeping people alive (lower death rate)
2. Creating new life (higher birth rate, although they might live shorter lives)
3. Sustaining more life (sustaining a higher population, with any degrees of the above two)

To me it looks like people only care about the first one, they care deeply about death but almost completely ignore potential for more life and mostly ignore quality of life.
If that's the reality, is it just an emotional thing that people do? If not I'm probably missing something huge, I'm going to look heart-less

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I do have a slight problem with abortion being a choice method - also it wastes money and time alike over just popping 2 pills (Birth Control and Morning After pill) >.>
The morning-after pill did wonders for my female companions, mainly because I made sure they took it...

Andi already explained this:
Those are great (if you like them. I know a great bunch of women who just hate taking the normal pill, me being one of them. For one it reduces my sex drive to practically zero and I'm not the only one. What's the use of being able to have safe sex if you don't feel like having any?)
Should women have to use a birth control form that alters their body in an unacceptable way? Or take the morning after pill each time just to make sure?
Birth control fails and often enough you don't know it did until your period doesn't come and there's a treacherous second line on that test. That's when you need to make a decission.

I have no problem with abortion as a last measure. >.>
Also, there's the whole bit about "should people do this to protect themselves?" nonsense. It's got the same logic as twats who decide one day to go bomb a hill on a longboard without a helmet, and blister their brains all over the perfectly fine sidewalk.
Should they be FORCED to wear a helmet? No.
Would the preemptive measure of wearing a helmet be a million times better than the costs to repair your face and stitch your skull back in place? Fuck yes.
Simply the fact that anyone considers personal preemptive measures of any kind to be too tedious makes me question their decision-making abilities - but I think that simply the military/critical thinking/planning/not wanting to worry side of me.

And personally I think that men should have a say somewhat in abortions - simply on the principe that I am financially and legally responsible for any number of little Hytegias running about. It's why I make any one of them take the morning-after; People are stupid, and shit does happen.

Ok, I hope you're not meaning what you've written the way I read it.
1) No, you don't get a say in whether a woman has or hasn't an abortion. Because an abortion isn't about you. An abortion is about the woman in whose body it is actually happening and her medical decission. It is nice and shows an incredible amount of trust if a woman asks you for advice and wants to discuss the issue with you.
As you say yourself: shit happens. You have sex, you carry the risk, both of you. Yet since nature only offers the possibility of dying in childbirth to one of you, only that person gets a say in whether to take that risk or not.
2) You make them take the morning after pill? I hope you're talking about talking them, seriously giving advice, driving them to the doctor/pharmacy and paying for it. Anything else would make you , uhm...

Oh yeah.
It's just half of my net worth for 18 or more years. Nothing much. I mean, who needs to enjoy life, anyhow? :roll:
If you're saying that if they choose to keep it, and then pay for it themselves - then, by all means, use that ideal you have put forth. But here, in this place called "reality," people pay for things, and people are MADE to pay for things that we didn't want to happen in the first place, but are forced into because of tremendous issues such as "it's my choice blah blah blah" - which is tremendously unfair.
Here's the syntax for you.
IF PREGNANT: Woman has say. Man does not.
IF NO KID: Both parties walk away.
IF KID: The woman sues the man for half of his paycheck for x amount of years. Man must pay for x amount of years regardless of feelings on the issue. Because he had to be born with a dick, and is therefore magically inherited the spot of "provider" regardless of status or standing in any aspect of the relationship with the child or the woman before or after.

-----------------------------

And yes. I sit there, and watch them take it.
I'm not driving their nose into the ground - I just sit down and explain that I would really REALLY like to just be sure about this not occurring, and they have complied with my wishes.

I wished it were that easy *sigh*
Not only does it take more than a couple of minutes, it is not something most women take easy as a decission. It's the way the pro-dead-women brigade wants you to think it were. In most countries and US states there's a whole lot of red tape, hurdles to jump and then you have to find a doctor who performs the abortion which, as I have heard, is not easy in parts of the USA.

An unfortunate factor.
All clinically-beneficial medical treatments should be opened up to the public. Too bad.

 

[Welshidiot]

Since nature only offers the possibility of dying in childbirth to one of you, only that person gets a say in whether to take that risk or not.

It's just half of my net worth for 18 or more years. Nothing much. I mean, who needs to enjoy life, anyhow?

Hytegia, I'm going to hazard a guess here, and say that one of the groups who probably wants to enjoy life are the women who don't want to run the risk of dying in childbirth.

I really can't see what point you were trying to make Hytegia, and the rest of your post didn't help. How does the requirement for you to take legal and financial responsibility for your own children (oh the horror), equate in any way with a woman's right to elect to have an abortion?

Also, if a woman who you had had sex with declined to take the morning after pill, what would you do then?

 

[Giliell]

Oh yeah.
It's just half of my net worth for 18 or more years. Nothing much. I mean, who needs to enjoy life, anyhow? :roll:
If you're saying that if they choose to keep it, and then pay for it themselves - then, by all means, use that ideal you have put forth. But here, in this place called "reality," people pay for things, and people are MADE to pay for things that we didn't want to happen in the first place, but are forced into because of tremendous issues such as "it's my choice blah blah blah" - which is tremendously unfair.
Here's the syntax for you.
IF PREGNANT: Woman has say. Man does not.
IF NO KID: Both parties walk away.
IF KID: The woman sues the man for half of his paycheck for x amount of years. Man must pay for x amount of years regardless of feelings on the issue. Because he had to be born with a dick, and is therefore magically inherited the spot of "provider" regardless of status or standing in any aspect of the relationship with the child or the woman before or after.

Oh no, a MRA :roll:
Has it ever occured to you that the word "child support" has a meaning? It's for the child, not for the woman. Shit happened, kid's here now so grow up and take some responsibility for your actions. You know what? SHE has to pay for that kid, too. She has to provide for that kid PLUS she has to care for that kid. For 18 long years, plus possibly college.
And even if she's the worst person on planet earth. It's not the fault of the child who had 0 chance of making any decission. Why should a child have to live in poverty because the parents are idiots.
Did you know that in most countries, being a single mother is the #1 poverty risk? Being a non-custodial father isn't. Over time, the non-custodial parent becomes richer, the custodial one poorer.
Don't want your money to end up anywhere near her pocket? Sue for custody. After all, she's demonstrated really poor decission making skills in having your child, that should count for something.
And half your paycheck? Wow, how do people do who have 2 or three kids?
If you feel that this is unfair, here's a solution:
Have a vasectomy. That's much cheaper than paying child support for an unwanted child later.
Want to have kids? Go to a reproduction clinic, take some porn, shag in a cup, have it frozen.
Problem solved.
But it seems like those men who are complaining are totally not willing to take those meassures. All they want is to shove the responsibility 100% to the woman.
You have your choice when you decide to have sex. You can use any contraception you want. You can ask her to use additional contraception. If she refuses you can chose not to have sex.
She gets one choice more, which is abortion and which is solely her choice because it only affects her at this moment because it's her body.
If a child is born, there's a person now with needs that have to be taken care of. Ideally, the financial needs would be catered for by society and financed via taxes, but until that comes to be, parents are responsible.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm loving this.
The second someone says "Men should have a say" then they assume that the person saying it is the most absolute pro-life, sexist biggot ever to step foot in the room.
Once again, I will say it:
I'm on your side. I have no problem with abortion as a last measure contraception method.
If you would have ever cared to read my posts without placing a notion of bias on them. Get your panties out of a knot and realize that I've agreed with you on every part of women having the ultimate choice, and that I only have a problem with people using it and men will most always be shafted with financial responsibility. (Gillell, your raw ignorance shines through here - because we both know that the man will always be held accountable even if he doesn't have the means of contributing anything of note).
:lol:

If you want to have the abortion, by all means.
But if you choose to keep it, and the man's official transcription is "I advised against this. Don't want the kid" then there should be some sort of form the woman signs to say "Hey - hey. I don't need to force other people to pay for my decisions to not have an abortion, not use contraception properly (or at all)" and then be done with it.
If the man wants to keep it, and the woman doesn't - it defaults to the woman's decision still.
Shit, it might actually lead toward more abortions if this was a commonplace procedure - and everyone has a say in it.

------------------------------------------------------

And to address this little gem:

If you feel that this is unfair, here's a solution:
Have a vasectomy. That's much cheaper than paying child support for an unwanted child later.
Want to have kids? Go to a reproduction clinic, take some porn, shag in a cup, have it frozen.
Problem solved.
But it seems like those men who are complaining are totally not willing to take those meassures. All they want is to shove the responsibility 100% to the woman.
You have your choice when you decide to have sex. You can use any contraception you want. You can ask her to use additional contraception. If she refuses you can chose not to have sex.

The Pill:
Can be came off of at any time. Cheap.
The Morning-After Pill:
Can be not taken. Cheap.

Vasectomy:
Cannot be came off of at any time. Expensive.

Which is cheaper? To go outside and wear a helmet when speeding down a hill - or, you know, expensive surgery to repair a fractured skull?
It's the same concept, except when you decide to NOT have surgery, you're making other people share in your physical therapy payments that take half of their paycheck for years on end.

Riddle me this, Giliell:
I have the courtesy to wrap it before I tap it. Would you do the courtesy of taking a Morning-After Pill for me, knowing that I have no desire for children and could not support any if it unfortunately happened that way?

 

[Giliell]

I'm loving this.
The second someone says "Men should have a say" then they assume that the person saying it is the most absolute pro-life, sexist biggot ever to step foot in the room.
Once again, I will say it:
I'm on your side. I have no problem with abortion as a last measure contraception method.
If you would have ever cared to read my posts without placing a notion of bias on them. Get your panties out of a knot and realize that I've agreed with you on every part of women having the ultimate choice, and that I only have a problem with people using it and men will most always be shafted with financial responsibility. (Gillell, your raw ignorance shines through here - because we both know that the man will always be held accountable even if he doesn't have the means of contributing anything of note).
:lol:

Ignorance? Mine?
We'll see later who'S ignorant
You obviously didn't read what I posted, but I'll try again.
Yes, you agree that woman should have the right to have an abortion. You only don't agree that children have a right to support. What you want is control over women again. You want to be the one to decide what happens. You rather have children live in overty than take your responsibility.
The man will be held accountable? Well, he was there when it happened, wasn't he?
Ever thought about the responsibility the woman has to take? I suppose not.

If you want to have the abortion, by all means.
But if you choose to keep it, and the man's official transcription is "I advised against this. Don't want the kid" then there should be some sort of form the woman signs to say "Hey - hey. I don't need to force other people to pay for my decisions to not have an abortion, not use contraception properly (or at all)" and then be done with it.
If the man wants to keep it, and the woman doesn't - it defaults to the woman's decision still.
Shit, it might actually lead toward more abortions if this was a commonplace procedure - and everyone has a say in it.

Yes, it's all her fault, SHE didn't use the contraception or didn't use it propperly. All HER fault, bad woman!
You put the whole responsibilty on her, the responsiblility on taking care of contraception, and THEN you want to have a say in her decission on an abortion or leave her and the kid without taking any responsibilty because non of it was YOUR fault because you didn't do shit except having sex.
Wow, that's a mature adult.

The Pill:
Can be came off of at any time. Cheap.
The Morning-After Pill:
Can be not taken. Cheap.

Vasectomy:
Cannot be came off of at any time. Expensive.

Which is cheaper? To go outside and wear a helmet when speeding down a hill - or, you know, expensive surgery to repair a fractured skull?
It's the same concept, except when you decide to NOT have surgery, you're making other people share in your physical therapy payments that take half of their paycheck for years on end.

Well, let's see:
Price of a vasectomy: between 500-1000$
Price of the pill : 10-30 $ a month = 120-360$ a year X 20 years (and I'm generous here)
Tell me, which is cheaper? Tell me, whose ignorance shines through?
Apart of course from the medical issues I described in my last post. But again, you have totally no problem with women taking all the burden of contraception.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Ignorance? Mine?
We'll see later who'S ignorant
You obviously didn't read what I posted, but I'll try again.
Yes, you agree that woman should have the right to have an abortion. You only don't agree that children have a right to support. What you want is control over women again. You want to be the one to decide what happens. You rather have children live in overty than take your responsibility.
The man will be held accountable? Well, he was there when it happened, wasn't he?
Ever thought about the responsibility the woman has to take? I suppose not.

No.
You are the one saying that men should have absolutely 100% no choice in the matter, whereas a woman has all the power to make both of their lives easier by simply not having the child.
But, if she wants to keep it, she has absolutely 100% choice in netting the man who has NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER in on a life-long commitment, and that's the way it's going to be.

Just because I fucked someone for a day doesn't give them the end-all right to fuck me every day for a lifetime.

*Zing!* Reverse sexism at it's finest.

Yes, it's all her fault, SHE didn't use the contraception or didn't use it propperly. All HER fault, bad woman!
You put the whole responsibilty on her, the responsiblility on taking care of contraception, and THEN you want to have a say in her decission on an abortion or leave her and the kid without taking any responsibilty because non of it was YOUR fault because you didn't do shit except having sex.
Wow, that's a mature adult.

Putting words into my mouth and making false assumptions based upon bias?
:roll:
Ignorance is bliss.

Where in the world did I say it's the woman's fault? I simply said that the burden should be placed on the person who wishes to keep the child, and that since it's her body she has the final say on it all.
*Zing!* Reverse sexism.

Well, let's see:
Price of a vasectomy: between 500-1000$
Price of the pill : 10-30 $ a month = 120-360$ a year X 20 years (and I'm generous here)
Tell me, which is cheaper? Tell me, whose ignorance shines through?
Apart of course from the medical issues I described in my last post. But again, you have totally no problem with women taking all the burden of contraception.

MAN. I wish they gave that shit out for FREE at Health Departments.

... Wait - they do? Really?
Well fuck. Too bad. I thought you were going somewhere with this.

-----------------------------------------

Two notes:
1) You have presented a paradox of political-correct reverse sexism.
You will ultimately say that the woman has the end-all-say-all in all matters to do with carrying a baby versus an abortion.
Cool shit. I agree.
But on the other hand, you're saying that she doesn't have to take full personal responsibility, EVEN THOUGH she's the end-all controlling authority in the matter, and has every right to net someone else to drag along with her ultimate and final decision without so much as a say from the other person involved.

2) You missed this.

Riddle me this, Giliell:
I have the courtesy to wrap it before I tap it. Would you do the courtesy of taking a Morning-After Pill for me, knowing that I have no desire for children and could not support any if it unfortunately happened that way?

 

[Giliell]

Putting words into my mouth and making false assumptions based upon bias?
:roll:
Ignorance is bliss.

Putting words into your mouth? I don't have to. Here's what you've written:

"Hey - hey. I don't need to force other people to pay for my decisions to not have an abortion, not use contraception properly (or at all)"

Note that you talk about her not using contraception (propperly)?
What about HIM using contraception? Like, you know, condoms?
What about talking about it beforehand and making you decission to take that risk according to how the conversation goes?

Where in the world did I say it's the woman's fault? I simply said that the burden should be placed on the person who wishes to keep the child, and that since it's her body she has the final say on it all.
*Zing!* Reverse sexism.

I'll comment on that later

Well, let's see:
Price of a vasectomy: between 500-1000$
Price of the pill : 10-30 $ a month = 120-360$ a year X 20 years (and I'm generous here)
Tell me, which is cheaper? Tell me, whose ignorance shines through?
Apart of course from the medical issues I described in my last post. But again, you have totally no problem with women taking all the burden of contraception.

MAN. I wish they gave that shit out for FREE at Health Departments.

... Wait - they do? Really?
Well fuck. Too bad. I thought you were going somewhere with this.

Here's a little lesson for you:
The USA =/= the world. Not everybody lives somewhere they can get the pill AND the necessary medical check-ups for free. When the conservatives have taken down PP entirely, it will be much harder for women in the USA to have any access to those, too.
I get the medical check-up on healthcare but have to pay for all kinds of contraception myself. So do most women in this world.

Two notes:
1) You have presented a paradox of political-correct reverse sexism.
You will ultimately say that the woman has the end-all-say-all in all matters to do with carrying a baby versus an abortion.
Cool shit. I agree.
But on the other hand, you're saying that she doesn't have to take full personal responsibility, EVEN THOUGH she's the end-all controlling authority in the matter, and has every right to net someone else to drag along with her ultimate and final decision without so much as a say from the other person involved.

No, it only seems to be a paradox to you because you fail to understand a few things:
1) She's NOT the end-all controlling authority. Men have a lot of control and responsibility, too. You can chose not to have sex, you can chose to use contraception, you can chose to have a vasectomy. It's your responsibility to talk to any female sexual partner about this issue before to make clear your wishes correspond. And that's the responsibility of the woman, too.

2) She only get's one more chance than you in preventing a full-term pregnancy. She and she alone gets that choice because it's her body and hers alone.

3) Child support isn't about her, her decission or you. Child support is about the child. Currently society places the financial responsibility on both parents. As said before, I wished it weren't, but that's how life goes. The burden to provide care and love for the child is usually placed on the mother (in cases where the parents are not a couple). So, yes, she takes a huge responsibility, far more than paying some money every month. And that's not her choice either. She's held responsible for that child the way the man is and even to a higher extend. Because, and I repeat it for the third or fourth time: child support isn't about the parents, it's about the child. So, if you find it OK to punish a child for the shitty decission of their mother like sleeping with a total idiot who isn't man enough to take the responsibility for the life he was involved in creating, fine. Maybe you'll understand that some day.

2) You missed this.

Riddle me this, Giliell:
I have the courtesy to wrap it before I tap it. Would you do the courtesy of taking a Morning-After Pill for me, knowing that I have no desire for children and could not support any if it unfortunately happened that way?

Well, since you missed quite a lot of my post, I thought I would just ignore it, but if you insist:
No, sorry, I can't take that, because I have an adverse reaction to it. Why I didn't tell you before? Well, you didn't ask! I asked you whether you wanted to wear a condom but you said no, you wouldn't.
Sorry, I can't stay for breakfast, I have to run now or I'll be late for picketing at the abortion clinic. What, you're surprised? Well, you didn't ask. Seems like we just have to wait and pray.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hey Giliell,
Can I sign us both up for a house mortgage on a several million-dollar mansion? You probably will get to visit the house a few times - but it will require half of your net income for quite a while.
What? You already have a house of your own that you're still paying off? With a husband to boot?
But you can't expect me to pay for this whole thing MYSELF, can you? You're going to have to throw money into it, regardless of whether you live in it, mow it's lawn, paint it's walls, and grow old with it.

You're lucky that I'm even letting you input your opinion - it's my sole decision, after all.

/flawed argument

 

[Giliell]

You know what?
Come back when you've grown up.
A child is not a house. Child support is not about the custodial parent getting any benefit, it is about the needs of a child. Unless you understand that, you'll just be another boy whining and complainingthat people make him take responsibility for his actions.
All you want is to have sex while placing the responsibility solely on women.
All you want is to punish a child because their mother dared to disobey you.
You'Re as misogynist as the dead-women-brigade, you only come to different conclusions.
BTW, your analogy would have some validity if I gave you a signed check without making talking about the use of it or making precautions that the amount does not exceed what I'm willing to give. If you then used it to buy a mansion, well, my bad. People would laugh at me and ask me why I was so stupid.
Yes, you're right, it was a flawed argument, a strawman and had no validity for the issue at hand.

 

[Andiferous]

Oh my goodness.

Well, I'm going to share a wee bit of personal experience for context...

Hytegia: When I first tried "the pill" in university, it left me vomiting for a day, causing me to miss a "final exam" in second year university, and after a long wait at a clinic, I barely was able to secure a doctor's note (as I had, miraculously, stopped vomiting after a few hours), and that doctor's note was critical to allowing me to retake that exam. I vowed never go on the pill again.

When I experienced pregnancy, I was diagnosed with "Hyperemesis Graviderum" which (in simple terms) Is translated as acute pregnancy sickness. I actually lost weight during my pregnancy. There wasn't a single day in nine months that I did not throw up at least once, and for the last three or four months, all I could stomach were vitamin drinks.

Then there were the really gross-out things that happen in labour. And the (permanent) physical changes that happen after pregnancy, that can potentially weaken a woman for life. I hate discussing this stuff, but sometimes people need to hear about it.

Flippancy around this stuff does annoy me a little. I also know of others who have had abortions, and their choice didn't come without consequence.

Sensitivity would be nice, here.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You know what?
Come back when you've grown up.
A child is not a house. Child support is not about the custodial parent getting any benefit, it is about the needs of a child. Unless you understand that, you'll just be another boy whining and complainingthat people make him take responsibility for his actions.

All you want is to have sex while placing the responsibility solely on women.

I have the courtesy to wrap it before I tap it.

All you want is to punish a child because their mother dared to disobey you.

Asking for both sides to be safe and asking for some cooperation so that it doesn't all come down to the sole decision of a single person is demanding obedience?
While we're making absurd definitions, "obedience" now means cheddar cheese, "Theory" now means blind guess, and "relevant" now means your points.
:lol:

You'Re as misogynist as the dead-women-brigade, you only come to different conclusions.

Giliell is always on the side of what's right for Women.
Hytegia does not 100% agree with her on all issues presented, and presents a different idea than either side has presented.
Giliell calls Hytegia a misogynist pro-lifer with a sexist complex and implies that he likes his women on a leash (in the metaphorical way, not the sexy way).

While we're tossing ad homs around, I think that you simply think that I'm the bad guy because you're always fighting for what's right, and therefore you can never possibly be wrong. If anyone disagrees with you on any single part of the issue, they're just as sexist as the others.
It's childish (and frankly, denial of reality) to see that giving someone absolute final word on something that can drag someone else down with that decision, and then in the same statement say that it's not their absolute responsability to make sure that it doesn't happen in the first place is completely ridiculous.
It's the Spiderman argument.
You want the final word? Fine.
But woman up and take the responsabilities that should come with having the final word and also netting someone else's life down with your final decision.

BTW, your analogy would have some validity if I gave you a signed check without making talking about the use of it or making precautions that the amount does not exceed what I'm willing to give. If you then used it to buy a mansion, well, my bad. People would laugh at me and ask me why I was so stupid.

Either it's a translation error, or it simply went straight over your head.
Or you're dancing.
What do I know? I'm just a man. I'm only entitled to an opinion about things, you know.

Yes, you're right, it was a flawed argument, a strawman and had no validity for the issue at hand.

It's your own argument, placed against you.
And, for financial and life-impacting reasons, it is a 100% valid argument.

==============================================

Flippancy around this stuff does annoy me a little. I also know of others who have had abortions, and their choice didn't come without consequence.

Sensitivity would be nice, here.

I'm sorry about the whole bit about you getting sick.
But, once again, my issue really isn't with abortion. It's with a single person's decision to NOT take the proper steps (including having an abortion - mainly, as a last resort) and having all the fantastic joys of a child when no one is prepared for it - and that single decision noosing up another human being.

 

[Welshidiot]

BUMP​

Since nature only offers the possibility of dying in childbirth to one of you, only that person gets a say in whether to take that risk or not.

It's just half of my net worth for 18 or more years. Nothing much. I mean, who needs to enjoy life, anyhow?

Hytegia, I'm going to hazard a guess here, and say that one of the groups who probably wants to enjoy life are the women who don't want to run the risk of dying in childbirth.

I really can't see what point you were trying to make Hytegia, and the rest of your post didn't help. How does the requirement for you to take legal and financial responsibility for your own children (oh the horror), equate in any way with a woman's right to elect to have an abortion?

Also, if a woman who you had had sex with declined to take the morning after pill, what would you do then?




EDIT: I highlighted one part of the original text because, Hytegia, you seem to have the fucked up idea that you have no responsibility in the matter,.........after all if you REALLY don't want to run the risk of having to pay child support, then don't have sex!

Also, you ARE aware that there are a number of medical conditions that can permanently prevent women from taking the pill in order to AVOID THE RISK OF HEART ATTACKS, STROKES, AND EVEN DEATH!?!??

Here's just one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hytegia, I'm going to hazard a guess here, and say that one of the groups who probably wants to enjoy life are the women who don't want to run the risk of dying in childbirth.

Precisely.

I really can't see what point you were trying to make Hytegia, and the rest of your post didn't help. How does the requirement for you to take legal and financial responsibility for your own children (oh the horror), equate in any way with a woman's right to elect to have an abortion?

Would it be my children if I was a woman, and I had the choice of having an abortion when all other methods fell through - and I wasn't ready for such a responsibility?
Fuck no.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It is left up to a single person, regardless of the other person's willingness, relation, or ability to support a child. The problem essentially stands in the fact that there is the potential for two people's lives to be ruined because of a single person's decision. If the woman said "I want to keep it," and the man said "but I can't support it - I have a family/life/kids/career/etc. of my own. I would have rather if you had the abortion" the woman should sign something that essentially says exactly something that is the legal equivalent to:
"I recognize that the father does not want to keep the child, and will not pay for support - but it's okay, I don't need his sorry ass to help me."
(The last part, something Giliell would have said any time of the day if it didn't support my argument.)

Also, if a woman who you had had sex with declined to take the morning after pill, what would you do then?

Call me paranoid, but I don't sleep with strangers on a dime (except those occasions when I'm really on fire that night with sharking the crowd, and it happens to be a holiday).
I usually have sex with people I've known for a good bit. Friends with benefits works wonders.

After all if you REALLY don't want to run the risk of having to pay child support, then don't have sex!

Abstinence is the best contraceptive, you mean?
Damn. I wish that wasn't what religious fundamentalists have been tossing around for years. :|

Or, you know, you can have a system where people that hold the ability to change another person's life forever (where they, in that position, would have done otherwise) can claim that they are not going to ruin someone's life along with their own and that they are financially competent enough to have a child at this time.

Also, you ARE aware that there are a number of medical conditions that can permanently prevent women from taking the pill in order to AVOID THE RISK OF HEART ATTACKS, STROKES, AND EVEN DEATH!?!??

I have a goldfish.
His name is Tim.
I'm sorry, I thought we stopped being relevant to the discussion and were talking about things that didn't matter.

Then she should get an abortion - who said that she couldn't?

 

[Welshidiot]

It is left up to a single person, regardless of the other person's willingness, relation, or ability to support a child. The problem essentially stands in the fact that there is the potential for two people's lives to be ruined because of a single person's decision. If the woman said "I want to keep it," and the man said "but I can't support it - I have a family/life/kids/career/etc. of my own. I would have rather if you had the abortion" the woman should sign something that essentially says exactly something that is the legal equivalent to:
"I recognize that the father does not want to keep the child, and will not pay for support - but it's okay, I don't need his sorry ass to help me."

And if she doesn't want to have the abortion, or sign the waiver? What then? What would be the next step in your new system?

Also, if a woman who you had had sex with declined to take the morning after pill, what would you do then?

Call me paranoid, but I don't sleep with strangers on a dime (except those occasions when I'm really on fire that night with sharking the crowd, and it happens to be a holiday).
I usually have sex with people I've known for a good bit. Friends with benefits works wonders.

This "answer" is evasive, and has not addressed my question.

After all if you REALLY don't want to run the risk of having to pay child support, then don't have sex!

Abstinence is the best contraceptive, you mean?

Yes. Do you have a logical, rational objection to that proposition? Are you seriously suggesting that if people don't have sex then they'll still get pregnant?
You seem to be confusing my suggestion that you can choose a different course of action, with me declaring my position on family planning.

Damn. I wish that wasn't what religious fundamentalists have been tossing around for years.

This...is a cheap shot,......which (much like the rest of your answer) falls short.
Hang on.....aren't you a military ordinance operative? Ouch....

Or, you know, you can have a system where people that hold the ability to change another person's life forever

Which the other person also holds at the time of conception.

(where they, in that position, would have done otherwise)

Total conjecture.

can claim that they are not going to ruin someone's life along with their own

Because as we all know: "Children ruin your life."

and that they are financially competent enough to have a child at this time.

Yea....."at this time".....people's circumstances can change beyond their control. What are you going to do if the mother signs the waiver you proposed earlier, but later is forced into financial hardship beyond her control? Will you wash your hands of the situation, and say: "Well that might be my biological offspring, but you signed a legally binding waiver, so it's nothing to do with me."..........?

Also, you ARE aware that there are a number of medical conditions that can permanently prevent women from taking the pill in order to AVOID THE RISK OF HEART ATTACKS, STROKES, AND EVEN DEATH!?!??

Then she should get an abortion - who said that she couldn't?

Did you nod off to sleep halfway through reading that last paragraph? Either you totally missed the subject of it, or your answer is horribly garbled. I'll spell it out at greater length.

Some women have incurable/unchangeable, naturally occuring medical conditions, that prevent them from taking the contraceptive pill, and in many cases would make the morning after pill highly problematical as well. For those women the only alternatives are barrier methods, IUDs (some of which can also cause unpleasant medical outcomes)........or they can avoid any vaginal penetration and minimise any penis-to-vulva contact......oooorrrrr......they can abstain from having sex.

This analogy of yours: "It's got the same logic as twats who decide one day to go bomb a hill on a longboard without a helmet, and blister their brains all over the perfectly fine sidewalk."....can not be legitimately applied to a woman who can not use an IUD, or take either pill, but did have sex with a man wearing a condom,...a condom which broke.



I'm going to talk about one particular abortion case for a moment, in order to illustrate some of the potential risks of that procedure, and don't worry I'm leading somewhere, I'm not "soap-boxing".

An educated and financially solvent couple I knew many years ago, (I'll call them Mr&Mrs X), had an unplanned pregnancy due to a contraceptive pill failure. Mrs X was obviously anxious at the prospect of being a parent, but was generally positive about it. Mr X persuaded her that they were young and should just have fun. So Mrs X had an abortion.

Human physionomy is non-standard, ie: no two people have quite the same internal physiological arrangement. The internal physiological differences between men who might outwardly appear quite similar, can be incredibly drastic, and women's physionomy is even more diverse.

Mrs X had an atypical internal structure, and during the abortion her womb was punctured all the way through to her bowel.
I won't go any further with the gory details, but Mrs X's recovery was hampered by frequent serious infections, at one point she had blood poisoning (if you don't know already blood poisoning can be fatal), and she eventually ended up sterile and with other permanent health problems.

An additional negative outcome was that Mr&Mrs X divorced.


What I've been leading to is this:

Women face the potential risk of serious illness, chronic illness, permanent loss of sexual and/or reproductive ability, permanent disfigurement and/or injury, and even death with many forms of contraception. They also face all those risks with abortion.....AND they face all of those risks with pregnancy. They also face the potential of having to deal with those outcomes on their own, and with no guarantee of legal or financial protection.

The only real reproductive risk that I take if I have sex with a woman is the financial/legal one, but the woman has to face that risk too. Even then, a man can evade that outcome more easily than a woman.

IMO the only choice I have as a man is to refrain from penis-to-vagina contact in any given sexual encounter, because, as far as I'm concerned, as soon as I engage in penis-to-vagina contact with a woman the potential risks that she faces are so much higher than what I face, that I should just shut my mouth and count my blessings.

If the scenario led to me becoming an unwilling father,.........."c'est la vie", I knew the risk I was taking and wouldn't leave either the mother or child in the lurch.
If it went the other way, and I was with a woman I wanted to have children with, but she chose to have an abortion, then my reaction would depend very much on her reasons for doing so, and I certainly wouldn't feel any animosity towards her for an abortion on medical, psychological, or emotional grounds.
If she had an abortion just because she didn't want kids, or specifically my kid,...well.....we'd obviously want different things from life, so it's probably best to just walk away.

All of these outcomes fall under the category of "some shit just happens, some shit you bring on yourself" IMO, and just to reiterate, women potentially take a mortal risk with contraception, abortion, and pregnancy, men only take a financial/legal one.

About this:

I have a goldfish.
His name is Tim.
I'm sorry, I thought we stopped being relevant to the discussion and were talking about things that didn't matter.

I'll make a deal with you, you cool it with the cheap shots and I'll stop calling you "Timmy the Goldfish".

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

And if she doesn't want to have the abortion, or sign the waiver? What then? What would be the next step in your new system?

Then the man should sign a waver saying that he, on this day, at this hour, makes this statement.

Any system where the penultimate choice of a single person can affect another person, then it is not right.
Not in the very least.

I should riddle you the same thing - can I sign both of us up for a mortage on a mansion?
I'll take care of it, and mow the lawn, and do upkeep myself - but you have to pay 1/2 your net worth.

This "answer" is evasive, and has not addressed my question.

>.>
I only sleep with people who I know well enough that would do something like that to humor my worries.

Yes. Do you have a logical, rational objection to that proposition? Are you seriously suggesting that if people don't have sex then they'll still get pregnant?
You seem to be confusing my suggestion that you can choose a different course of action, with me declaring my position on family planning.

You missed the part where I was basically saying that the only person who sports that successful campaign is religious fundamentalists
You know what? You're right.
Why bother teaching anyone about any contraception?! Hell, people die from it ALL THE TIME, right? And those that don't die have a tendancy to die during pregancy or get sick/killed during a "routine" abortion.
We should just toss out all of Sex Ed classes and just stick with "Abstinance" classes.

It's all anyone would ever need.

>.>
Quit being mellodramatic with hyped up statistical differences. Yes, every case is different - but that does not mean that everyone drops dead or loses a kidney when they take medication. If it didn't work for MOST women, then it would not be on the market.

==============================
Note: Quit dicing up responses because you're too lazy to form coherent paragraphs. It removes the context of the initial part being responded to, and when other people read the actual post you were addressing it makes you look like a twit.
==============================

Which the other person also holds at the time of conception.

Even male-end contraception has risks of failure. (It's minute, yes - but you were addressing minute things in your previous posts. Why should you have all the fun?)
What then?
She still has the power to net the other person in forever.

Total conjecture.

This is why it's making you look like an asshat.
The situation put forth is that the male DOES NOT WANT THE CHILD - it's not a conjecture. Because, in that particular situation, the male does not want the child and, if put in the woman's place, would have had the abortion.
:|
Save the mining for a relatively-awesome $20 indie videogame made by a man called "Notch"

Because as we all know: "Children ruin your life."

They do if it was unplanned, and you are not prepared to take care of nor support a child.
Ask all the sob stories that got knocked up in High School because of a lack of a solid Sex Ed program that, instead, taught "Abstinance" - I'm sure they would say that all their dreams came true when they had a child at 17. And you can probably ask the Dads who are paying off child support because they had no choice in the matter about how they're set for life financially.

Yea....."at this time".....people's circumstances can change beyond their control. What are you going to do if the mother signs the waiver you proposed earlier, but later is forced into financial hardship beyond her control? Will you wash your hands of the situation, and say: "Well that might be my biological offspring, but you signed a legally binding waiver, so it's nothing to do with me."..........?

What? You mean that people should actually THINK ABOUT THINGS before they decide to bring life into this world?
Brilliant. I wish that was a bonus to the whole system.

Oh - wait.

Als, you're saying that one person can simply have an abortion and she can wash her hands of it all regardless of the father's input on the situation - or she can have it, regardless of the father's situation and muck up his hands forever?
Bias noted.

*Super cool story, bro.*
All of these outcomes fall under the category of "some shit just happens, some shit you bring on yourself" IMO, and just to reiterate, women potentially take a mortal risk with contraception, abortion, and pregnancy, men only take a financial/legal one.

I will address this. I have to turn over watch.

About this:

I have a goldfish.
His name is Tim.
I'm sorry, I thought we stopped being relevant to the discussion and were talking about things that didn't matter.

I'll make a deal with you, you cool it with the cheap shots and I'll stop calling you "Timmy the Goldfish".

Cheap shots?
You are being irrelevant.

 

[Andiferous]

::thumbsup:: Mr. Welsh.

I expect that most people realise by now, any topic barely relevant to abortion is likely to procure many emotions; but you should know this already, Mr. H.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

::thumbsup:: Mr. Weish.

I expect that most people realise by now, any topic barely relevant to abortion is likely to procure many emotions; but you should know this already, Mr. H.

Of course.
But being emotional about something doesn't automatically make it right, or rational.
In fact, emotional attatchment to a situation is evidence against being rational, and thinking clearly about a situation from multiple viewpoints.
I host Glenn Beck as a prime example of this. If emotional response was a gauge of rationality, then the Obamacare Nazi Communist regime of Socialist Far-Left terrorist huggers that he's crying about all the time is one of the more reasonable things on public television. And NephilimFree's drunk crying spree over Zombie Raptor Jesus' message against evilution is not something to be chuckled at.

Show me a single instance other than the current situation where a single person is given the total end-all ability of noosing someone up with a life-long commitment, regardless of either person's ability and preperation for it.
My example was taking out a loan on a mansion. In that instance, I have the 100% ability to pull you into a lifelong commitment. Your input is optional, and you must pay regardless of your relation to me or the mansion.

Andi, the second that we start gauging a response based upon people's emotional attachment to it then anything can magically become rational and reasonable. My fellow sailors get more rational every day, it increasing with direct relation to the alcohol intake for the evening. :lol:
The fun part is that the second an emotional response is challanged by anything, nothing is offered up but the same old swan song and a few ad hominem remarks that never actually address the statement or criticism in it's full format, and will bias itself toward it's own idea instead of offering anything new based upon the input.

 

[WarK]

Show me a single instance other than the current situation where a single person is given the total end-all ability of noosing someone up with a life-long commitment, regardless of either person's ability and preperation for it.
My example was taking out a loan on a mansion. In that instance, I have the 100% ability to pull you into a lifelong commitment. Your input is optional, and you must pay regardless of your relation to me or the mansion.

It seems you don't know this, but there exists a causal relationship between having sex and babies being born. You have control, you can choose not to have sex, to use contraception and first of all to talk about it to your partner. If you don't want to think about it before having sex but afterwards you suddenly change your mind who's rational/emotional balance is failing? Wait, I know, men can't think rationally about consequences of their actions when sex is involved. We're just animals, brilliant excuse. Is this what you're trying to say? You want all the fun but no responsibilities? Too bad life doesn't work like that.