the problem with abortion and stem cell research

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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.

:facepalm:
Did you just stop by, skim the last few posts, and decide to put your two bits in?

I want everyone to take every precaution necessary to keep unplanned pregnancies out of the picture.

Abortion is the same way.

In fact, what I'm suggesting is something similar to what many doctors do if you don't take their advice on vital treatment options (a release of responsibility waver) -
this is the same, except for husbands (you know, those ones that don't get to make the final decision in all of that mess?) to say "I would advise against this - I don't have the time, finances, etc. to support this relationship."

 

[WarK]

In fact, what I'm suggesting is something similar to what many doctors do if you don't take their advice on vital treatment options (a release of responsibility waver) -
this is the same, except for husbands (you know, those ones that don't get to make the final decision in all of that mess?) to say "I would advise against this - I don't have the time, finances, etc. to support this relationship."

Choosing not to have sex is the final decision. If you know what are the consequences of having sex you should think about it beforehand. Women and children are humans too you know, and you seem to treat them like goods or services that come with a warranty. Like you could return the goods up to 7 days after purchase.

 

[Story]

LOL Hytegia, you crack me up. You really need to learn the ways of the world. If the kid is your biological offspring who else do you expect society to bill the responsibility of raising it on?

Look, Hytegia, we understand you just want to fuck people and don't want to live up to the responsibilities that the natural order of things has landed on you. But that's not how the world works. You might think it's unfair that you're not allowed to force a woman to have an operation to kill something inside her or you might feel it's unfair that sex can actually lead to someone bearing your children, but no one can change the fact that it's your child. A haploid of your own cells.

There are a lot of people that are perfectly happy with running out on their children, you being one of them of course, but this should never be something we, as a society, allow fathers to do. I can't see why you think we should allow this kind of thing to happen. You keep saying something about "enjoying life" and "reverse sexism", but apparently "enjoying life" doesn't seem apply in your eyes to women that want to have children or the lives of your own potential children, just yourself.

And reverse sexism? Seriously Hytegia? It's reverse sexism to not allow men to force women to have abortions that they don't want to have or what was it you wanted...? Allow men the choice to be able to walk out on their children if they want too?

 

[Giliell]

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).

1st: Reading comprehension fail
I never called you a pro-lifer, I said you were as misogynist as they are.
And I make that statement not because you're disagreeing with me and that would make anybody anything, but because you yourself display your misogynism clearly.

You wnat to have sex without any responsibility or consequences, placing all of that on the woman.
No, sorry, handing her a bunch of hormones to swallow because YOU have decided that this is the best and cheapest, not ever acknowleging what I or Andiferous said about adverse effects of hormonal based contraception, is not taking care or being responsible. It shows your profound disregard for women and their needs. Oh, I stand corrected, you don't hand them a bunch of hormones, you make them swallow them.

Since you consider contraception to be her responsibility anyway, you have stated twice that you think that whenever an unplanned pregnancy occurs, it is her fault because she must have messed things up:

It's with a single person's decision to NOT take the proper steps

"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)"

You're constantly trying to shift the focus from sex, which is where pregnancy happens to "some time after sex when she can have an abortion", therefore removing the man and his responsibility totally from the picture.
You're constantly talking about "her netting the man in".
Sorry, as long as we aren't talking about female on male rape, that's just the oldest and lamest excuse ever. Pregnancy happens when two fertile people have heterosexual sex. Parenthood is an always present possible consequence of sex. That's just a reality you want to deny by shifting the point of dicussion.

Finally you're still totally removing the child and their needs out of the discussion. Because that's the person child support is about. And the man has just the same part in initially creating said child as the woman has. That's why he's held equally responsible for the wellbeing of the child, at least financially. She might be the greatest asshole on planet earth who truely did despictable things to the man. That still doesn't make the child of said couple somewhat responsible, they did not forfeit their right to care and adequate support fron the two people who provided the DNA via Sex.

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.

You mean like the life of the woman and the child because the man decides to be a coward and not pay child support (which is, btw, a everyday occurence all over the world after a divorce, after some 10 years of marriage and 3 planned children)?

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.)

Nope.
Because I don't think a woman has the right to do that, since child support is about the child and she has no right to waive away the money the child is entitled to.

But really, enough is enough.
I feel no need to continue this discussion, since you're not going to give any new argument and continue to whine about how unfair it is that only the person in whose body a pregnancy happens (and whose life is at a much higher risk from that moment on than the general population's) gets to decide on what medical procedures she wants/ doesn't want to engage in.

 

[borrofburi]

You might think it's unfair that you're not allowed to force a woman to have an operation to kill something inside her

To be fair, this is not quite what he thinks. He thinks that he should be allowed to say "either get an abortion or sign this waiver that says you take full (monetary) responsibility", which is not the same as forcing an abortion.

I don't think a woman has the right to [sign that the father doesn't have to pay anything], since child support is about the child and she has no right to waive away the money the child is entitled to.

I think this is the core of the argument, I and I think the vast majority of the people in this thread have missed that.

 

[WarK]

I don't think a woman has the right to [sign that the father doesn't have to pay anything], since child support is about the child and she has no right to waive away the money the child is entitled to.

I think this is the core of the argument, I and I think the vast majority of the people in this thread have missed that.

Yes, it is a very good point and I hadn't thought about it this way before Giliell pointed it out, thanx

 

[SirYeen]

Imho :
Problems with Stemm cell research : Absolutely none.
Problems with abortion : Depends on how old the morula / blastula/ phetus is. I personally think you have to determine the state of consciousness and the capacity to suffer. On top of that you might want to think about psychological effects for the "mother" (however some people might think this is irrelevant.)

 

[Demojen]

In an ideal world:
(Assuming unplanned pregnancy)
Two consenting adults discuss the implications of having sex.
Both agree to the consequences.

If the choice is abortion before hand, that is a choice they make together (before sex).
If the woman becomes pregnant, knowing they've chosen abortion in this event and she decides to keep the fetus and go back on her original contractual agreement, the male partner should be entitled to if he chooses, absolve himself of all responsibility to the FETUS. A fetus has no rights. If the woman takes the fetus to term, she has chosen to do so with a sperm donar. The fetus is born as a child with no legal father.

If the choice is contraception and risk pregnancy, that is a choice they make separately (before sex).
If the woman becomes pregnant and there was no agreement to abortion before hand, if the woman does not wish to abort the fetus, both parties to the contract are obligated to pay for the long-term consequences of this decision. While a fetus has no rights, once the fetus is born and becomes a child, it is given all of the rights of a human, including the obligatory rights of support by it's parents.

How the world works:
(Assuming unplanned pregnancy)
Two consenting adults don't discuss the implications of sex.
Neither agree to the consequences.

If the choice is abortion, it is the womans choice alone (as it should be in this event). The consequences for failing to prepare ahead of time in this event are long lasting.

If the choice is contraception, it is the womans choice alone (as it should be in this event). The consequences for failing to prepare ahead of time in this event are long lasting.

 

[Welshidiot]

Telecoms engineers have been "improving my local service" in the past week, so that's why I haven't been online.
I had most of this answer prepared before I went offline, however, so I'm posting it for the sake of completeness, but I quite understand if noone wants to continue the thread.




@ Timmy the Goldfish

If you were just having trouble following my arguments (or I yours), that would be problematical but not insurmountable, but you seem to be having trouble following your own arguments, and you seem to keep forgetting things that you've written, even though they're posted in this thread. You also seem to be either reading my posts selectively, or totally failing to notice significant statements and lines of text.

To top your apparent bewilderment off, you claim that I am "too lazy to write in coherent paragraphs".......which is somewhat ironic considering that so far the only person in this thread who seems to really understand your point is......you.
Even if you are right, and we are all wrong, noone can tell because you've failed to communicate your argument coherently.

Here is a case in point:

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.

Up to this point the only statement you've mentioned is the waiver the woman is supposed to sign, the one that absolves the man of parental responsibility....

What's this new statement you're talking about then?
Have you mentioned it beforehand? If so, where did you mention it?
Is it meant to be the part that follows? In that case why didn't you end your first sentence with a colon, and then place quotation marks around the portion that was meant to be the statement?

It's quite obvious that you've omitted something somewhere.

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 is quite possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. I'm going to ask you two questions in return, in order to illustrate why.

1: Does this mansion come into being as a direct consequence of me inseminating you?
2: Will you face a potential risk of permanent ill health, or even death, as a result of this mansion being built?

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

This is at least the third time you've evaded that question from me, and you appear to have ignored or evaded it when Gilliel and a few other people asked it too.
An uncharitable person might say that your evasiveness implies a dark and nasty side to your character,...a more forgiving person would say that you realise you've said something that sounds rather silly, and a little bit creepy, and the you're evading the question because you realise that the only potential answers will make you sound even more silly/creepy.

I'm not going to address the next piece of rhetorical idiocy you wrote about abstinence/contraception. Apparently you only skimmed what I wrote about abstinence in my last post,......so if you want an adequate rebuttal to your strawman attack, go back and read the one I gave you last time.

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.

I didn't mention statistics, I didn't hype anything up.
Apparently you don't have enough understanding of the complexities of anatomy, endocrinology, or obstetrics to be able to appreciate the potential risks that all women have to face with contraception, abortion, and pregnancy.

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.

What you don't understand is just how two dimensional your casual "if the man and the woman swapped places" scenario actually is.
Consider it just a little more Timmy,.....you are now a woman, you have a foetus growing inside you,......how do you feel?
The honest answer is that you don't have a clue how you'd feel in that situation, no man does. In fact no woman knows how she'll feel until she actually experiences it for herself.

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.

Timmy, what you've written here is nonsensical, you don't even seem to be following your own argument at this point, so god alone knows how I'm meant to.
Go back to my last post and read the relevant parts again.

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.

You look like a bit of a twit for failing to follow your own arguments. If my "dicing up" of your responses damages your ability to remember your own points, then perhaps that's a sign that you've spent too much time "debating" with people like ShockofGod, and NephilimFree.

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.

Yea, she can IMO, as I said previously:

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.

And as for you "noting my bias",......what was your first clue? Was it the two times I wrote "IMO", or the time I wrote "as far as I'm concerned"?

*Super cool story, bro.*

This isn't /b/ Timmy, your rhetoric is misplaced.
BTW I didn't tell the story to pluck at anyone's heart strings. As I said in the previous post, it was purely to illustrate some of the dangers of abortion.


After reviewing what you've written in this thread, I'm forced to conclude that you are either a) distracted by other things and unable to give it your full attention, or b) permanently challenged in the area of comprehension and coherence.
Either way your inability to remember what you've written, and follow your own arguments are making this very hard going.

Finally:

....child support is about the child.....

I referred to this at least twice in previous posts, although I'll admit my reference was implicit rather than explicit.
Further to this point, Timmy, as far as I can see the only way to make your new system workable is for the law to remove automatic parental responsibility from fathers, thus obviating the need for mothers to sign waivers.
Unfortunately most societies believe that rights are dependent on responsibilities, and therefore men would also have to give up their automatic parental rights.

Speaking as a parent myself, I'll keep the parental responsibilities, because there's no damned way that I'll give up the parental rights.
Please feel free to interpret that as my bias.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

*stuff*

Thread Necromancy should be a crime.

 

[Andiferous]

All due respect, but I'd rather see a thread read and resurrected than see infinite reincarnations of stale arguments.

If the threads and thoughts on this site have any meaning or value, it can't hurt to bump them. I kinda think the threads on this site are meaningful. If not, it would speak badly for the site.

Plus, Welsh pointed out that he hasn't had opportunity to reply before now. It's crude to end a thread with a picture.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

All due respect, but I'd rather see a thread read and resurrected than see infinite reincarnations of stale arguments.

If the threads and thoughts on this site have any meaning or value, it can't hurt to bump them. I kinda think the threads on this site are meaningful. If not, it would speak badly for the site.

Plus, Welsh pointed out that he hasn't had opportunity to reply before now. It's crude to end a thread with a picture.

When people have stopped caring about a thread, when is the proper point to halt it?
Also this thread has saeverely derailed from Stem Cell Research to Abortion - a long beaten dead horse. It will be incarnated more times on earth than stars in the sky.

 

[Andiferous]

All due respect, but I'd rather see a thread read and resurrected than see infinite reincarnations of stale arguments.

If the threads and thoughts on this site have any meaning or value, it can't hurt to bump them. I kinda think the threads on this site are meaningful. If not, it would speak badly for the site.

Plus, Welsh pointed out that he hasn't had opportunity to reply before now. It's crude to end a thread with a picture.

When people have stopped caring about a thread, when is the proper point to halt it?
Also this thread has saeverely derailed from Stem Cell Research to Abortion - a long beaten dead horse. It will be incarnated more times on earth than stars in the sky.

If a thread is to be reincarnated repeatedly, it's obvious that people still care about the topic. People who have given up simply have the choice to not post.

Yes, you are right on that second point; perhaps dividing the thread and creating a new topic (with links) might be in order given the complexity of this subject matter; but this does not negate the fact that all of this stuff should be considered within this (very ethically convoluted) discussion. Ethics are something that are never easy to argue, and often require diversity of background information.

Of course, this is just my opinion, really. But I don't think Welsh deserved that.

 

[IBSpify]

6 days is hardly a big case of thread necromancy, it's not like nobody had posted in it in over a month, it's been less then a week.

Though I do hate to bring up the topic of at what point does it become thread necromancy.

 

[Welshidiot]

@ Timmy the Goldfish

Check the date on this post from Case: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=58426#p58426

Now check the date on this post from pop: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=113827#p113827



What happened to your tough stance on thread necromancy Timmy?

Did you mislay your archive of pony pictures?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If 2 people give shit let them discuss. If it only matters to 1 then nobody elses really cares and the thread sinks again. What is the fuss?

 

[WarK]

*stuff*

Thread Necromancy should be a crime.

At least you're consistent with the level of your arguments in this thread

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

@ Timmy the Goldfish
What happened to your tough stance on thread necromancy Timmy?

It died out about the same time I realized that discussing things about abortion online is just as useless and fruitless online as it is to Tea-Party nutters. Especially when people seem to either entirely miss (or intentionally dance around) the problem of a single person's decision can effect (at a minimum) 2 other people's lives total.
I guess asking people to take responsibility when they demand 100% controlling authority on such things is a silly notion.

Did you mislay your archive of pony pictures?

:lol: :lol: :lol: no :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[borrofburi]

Especially when people seem to either entirely miss (or intentionally dance around) the problem of a single person's decision can effect (at a minimum) 2 other people's lives total.
I guess asking people to take responsibility when they demand 100% controlling authority on such things is a silly notion.

Except... It's not really that is it? The decision to have sex was mutual. It's not like she magically inseminated herself...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Especially when people seem to either entirely miss (or intentionally dance around) the problem of a single person's decision can effect (at a minimum) 2 other people's lives total.
I guess asking people to take responsibility when they demand 100% controlling authority on such things is a silly notion.

Except... It's not really that is it? The decision to have sex was mutual. It's not like she magically inseminated herself...

>.>
It's equal up until the point one's decision can effect the lives of both the living, and the living-to-be;
IF I was in her position, and was not financially ready to take on this responsibility - I would say no. However, that single decision is not given to me.
Instead my financial responsibility and future is placed in the hands of another human being, who's choice it is to bring into this world another life that I am not capable of paying for, nor caring for.
If it was up to me to purchase a mansion, should I be able to sign your name on the contract for the loan? I only used a Mansion because if you were signed up for one, it would be just as life-altering to both people. You would have such a hard time making the payments, and then you would have to do some time and take care of it, regardless of how many houses you have to take care of on your own or with a spouse already.
It's less about money and more about life-altering decisions. Financial status is only half the battle - the other half is placing your solid opinion in which both sides get an equal say as to their preparedness for a child's life to be brought into this world.

Also, this is not something new. It happens all the time, just not for abortions. Medical, Law, and Business fields all do it. The Military does it all the time. You do it every time you don't read your cellphone contract and decide to root your phone.
It basically says: "You're not going to take our advice - cool. We are not financially liable for any actions after this point."
And, if this WAS in place, I should guarantee you that people will start thinking through pregnancy and having children - on both sides. >.>
It could be a measure to say: "Woah. Woah. Woah. - I'm not ready for this here. Are you? Because I can't support this kid." And both sides accurately placing an opinion on the issue.