Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Male Reproductive Rights
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Seris
zzzzzz


Member 1928

Level 33.66

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2006, 11:22 PM #76 of 178
It is his child if she decides to carry the kid to term, sir.

Otherwise no, it's not really his or his to say it should be born or not.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Gohan1983
Wark!


Member 576

Level 2.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2006, 11:35 PM Local time: Mar 10, 2006, 10:35 PM #77 of 178
The world i live in is reality if you believe that "pulling out before he cums?" crap then you are living in a fantasy world and soon reality will come wake you up.

Thank God the courts will soon decide just what rights a man has in this issue. Praise God for Alito and Roberts.

Most amazing jew boots
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 12:09 AM #78 of 178
Originally Posted by Gohan1983
Thank God the courts will soon decide just what rights a man has in this issue. Praise God for Alito and Roberts.
I cannot believe it took me this long to catch on to your troll. Fuck you.

no scalia love?


What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 12:16 AM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 12:16 AM #79 of 178
I also suppose he's trolling. Nobody could be this retarded. I haven't seen anybody in the Palace pass off this kind of drivel and seriously expect us to treat it like a rational point. This has to be trolling.

I also refuse to believe that it took me 10 minutes to catch up to speed just to have lurker beat me to the punch. =/

Edit: 7 minutes. =/

FELIPE NO

Last edited by Bradylama; Mar 11, 2006 at 12:21 AM.
Chibi Neko
The hell am I doing here?


Member 922

Level 27.65

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 02:53 AM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 04:23 AM #80 of 178
I guess I will just make my response simple.
anyone, man or woman, who does not want a child, should not be fucking. Either that or reliable methods of preventing pregnancy.

I guess it may not 'seem' fair to the men, but the fact is that the reproductive right is the woman's alone. 9 months of bodily changes and childbirth pain and risks are things that men do not have to worry about.

Besides, if a man really wants a child to raise and love, why not adopt? Adopted children require the same things.

Most amazing jew boots
David4516
Second Child


Member 2016

Level 8.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 05:07 AM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 02:07 AM #81 of 178
Quote:
Oh yes abortion is so evil. Lets force those rape victims to carry that bastard child. Lets force parents who cannot support a child have one so the child can starve and suffer thier whole life. Lets force mothers and fathers to have children with birth defects or disabilities thier whole life. I mean, it doesn't matter if the child has no chance of surviving or will never be able to function or grow in our world correctly. Because it's the right thing to let that baby be born!
Quote:
Give me a break. Just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean it's wrong. There are some valid reasons to cancel a pregnancy.
Hang on, I never said that there arn't valid reasons for abortion. There are, however "I don't feel like raising a child" is NOT one of them. If you aren't willing to risk a pregnacy, then don't have sex. It's very simple really.

Let me tell you "pro-choice" folks a little story. I was an accident, my parents were not married at the time that I was concieved, and they were most certainly NOT planning on having children at that point. They were just college students after all. Now, this is a perfect example of a situation where you guys would say "abort, abort!!!".

However, my parents did the right thing. They got married, and my dad went out and found a job, and supported my mom and I. It wasn't easy for them (or me for that matter), but they did it anyway. In fact I have a great deal of resepect for my parents, because they made some big and difficult changes in their own lives for my sake, when they could have just as easily aborted me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Cyrus XIII
Good Chocobo


Member 554

Level 17.68

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 06:36 AM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 12:36 PM #82 of 178
I was an accident in a similar fashion, yet I still believe that the ultimate choice about going through a pregnancy or not should remain with the women in question. Then again, this didn't keep me from recently encouraging a close friend of mine to keep her child and the path they're in for will likely be a tough one to go (because of money or rather the lack therof).

How ya doing, buddy?

Last edited by Cyrus XIII; Mar 11, 2006 at 06:39 AM.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 08:41 AM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 06:41 AM #83 of 178
Originally Posted by Gohan1983
The world i live in is reality if you believe that "pulling out before he cums?" crap then you are living in a fantasy world and soon reality will come wake you up.
No pun intended, but I guess post-1950's sex education hasn't penetrated where you live.

Pre-ejaculation semen is not fertile enough to impregnant a woman. The problem is that most guys can't "get out" in time. But I don't live in reality. Then again I've never had to have anybody terminate a pregnancy either. Plus, you can always believe the conservative movement on health education right? They're never wrong! Well, except on AIDs..... but that's it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 11:48 AM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 11:48 AM #84 of 178
Quote:
They were just college students after all. Now, this is a perfect example of a situation where you guys would say "abort, abort!!!".
Whether or not your parents wanted to abort you was their own choice. Nobody is encouraging potential parents to abort their children in any situation save perhaps the husband and her parents.

What you still fail to realize is that it's impossible to determine individual motives for abortion. Let's say your parents decided to abort you. They're both in college, both have very small if any income, everything screams of economic infeasability. But what if, say, your mom had a weak heart, and giving birth to you could kill her? What if your dad beat her, and she didn't want to bring his child into the world? What if she faced the threat of disownment if she had a child?

What your parents did was admirable on many levels, and while you may be here today, I can guarantee you that you wouldn't care if you had been aborted.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
David4516
Second Child


Member 2016

Level 8.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 01:16 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 10:16 AM #85 of 178
Quote:
What you still fail to realize is that it's impossible to determine individual motives for abortion.
I don't really understand what you mean by that... you just listed a whole bunch of "motives", so how is it impossible?

Quote:
Let's say your parents decided to abort you. They're both in college, both have very small if any income, everything screams of economic infeasability.
I don't think it's right to end a life just to save a few bucks. And just because something seems difficult doesn't mean you should just give up.

Quote:
But what if, say, your mom had a weak heart, and giving birth to you could kill her?
If giving birth will likely kill the mother, I think it's reasonable to want an abortion.

Quote:
What if your dad beat her, and she didn't want to bring his child into the world?
Thats a tricky one... but I think it would be better to just leave the father and raise the child alone (or put the child up for adoption) than to have the abortion. It's hard to say though, this particular case is a no-win-situation no matter what you do...

Quote:
What if she faced the threat of disownment if she had a child?
That would be a pretty lame excuse IMHO. I believe that your responsibility to protect your child outweighs your responsibility to your parents...

Quote:
What your parents did was admirable on many levels, and while you may be here today, I can guarantee you that you wouldn't care if you had been aborted.
Weather or not I "care" is irrelavent. Say I kill you in your sleep. I guarantee you wouldn't care (because you wouldn't see it coming). Does that make it okay?

I was speaking idiomatically.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 02:15 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 02:15 PM #86 of 178
Quote:
I don't really understand what you mean by that... you just listed a whole bunch of "motives", so how is it impossible?
Because human beings are capable of something called Deceit. If some bitch gets an abortion because she lost a bet with her friends, she sure as Hell isn't going to disclose that reason. It's impossible to truly know what someone is thinking during any point in their lives, because it is entirely possible that the reasonings they provide for their actions are false. How then, do we differentiate legitimate needs for abortion from trivial ones? We can't. Therefore, the safest course of action is to provide abortions to whoever that needs them, because if we get rid of abortions, then not only do we increase the burden on society to support the children, but we endanger the physical, mental, and economic well-being of women or couples that have damn good reasons for aborting their potential child.

Aside from that, it isn't anybody's place to judge the motives for an abortion. While you may not believe that a certain reason for an abortion is justifiable, that's none of your concern, because you aren't the one having the abortion. It's nobody's business but the woman's or the couple's, and inquiring into their reasonings is an egregious invasion of privacy.

Quote:
I don't think it's right to end a life just to save a few bucks. And just because something seems difficult doesn't mean you should just give up.
Where do we stop at this reasoning? Is it not OK to slaughter a cow because maintaining her puts an extra burden on the farm? Is it not ok to euthenize your dog because its colostomy bag is too much hassle? How do we legislate these things? Do we simply stop at the human level, which is still a debateable status?

Besideswhich, it is again not your place to determine whether or not somebody should have an abortion. It is not your seed, it is not your body.

I've provided you with several cases for why your mom could have elected to abort you, and while you personally determine one to be ok, the second is indeterminable, and the third you consider a definite no-no. However, why is it that you should force your own reasoning on a person by power of law? How is it even possible to differentiate these motives without mind reading? You would argue that it's simply better to allow the child to be born, but not only does that put an undue burden on the parents, but it also impacts society as a whole, because children don't give back for 16 years. You are actively seeking to force a problem on society that doesn't have to exist.

Quote:
Weather or not I "care" is irrelavent. Say I kill you in your sleep. I guarantee you wouldn't care (because you wouldn't see it coming). Does that make it okay?
Not according to the State, but as far as I'm concerned, drawing personal opinion on the matter would have no relevance, since I would no longer exist. Assuming that you were aborted, you wouldn't have even had a consciousness that existed in the first place. The only proof of your existance would have been a lump of cells in the garbage, and your defining aspect as a person, your ego, never would have come to be.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
lordjames
Carob Nut


Member 1690

Level 5.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 03:49 PM #87 of 178
Originally Posted by a lurker
Who will pick up the slack on the father's child support, then? The state? Good intentions? Nobody?
Then the mother would have to determine whether she can raise the child without the support of the father. If she can, then she could continue with the planned pregnancy and raise the child by herself, a phenomenon that has become increasingly common today. If not, then she could decide to have the child aborted and not be burdened with the responsibility of providing for a child by herself. In the case of the father, theoretically, he would need to release himself of those parental responsibilities during the period in which the mother could legally proceed with an abortion, allowing her the freedom to decide whether she wants to have the baby by herself or not.

The problem with the status quo, according to proponents of this law, is that men are often forced to pay for children they didn't want in the first place, or are required to pay for children when they're unable to do so because the mother insists on following through with the pregnancy. Granting men the right to opt out of such planned pregnancies would theoretically put them on an equal legal plain with women insofar as they wouldn't be dependant on women to dissolve their parental obligations, and, consequently, they could make that decision for themselves.

This is how a theoretical male abortion might take place. The logic is interesting, but I haven't made up my mind yet on whether I would support something like this or not.

A few things I want to attack:

Originally Posted by Chibi Neko
I guess I will just make my response simple.
anyone, man or woman, who does not want a child, should not be fucking. Either that or reliable methods of preventing pregnancy.
This mode of thinking is outdated and doesn't correspond to the realities of the world today. Therefore, it doesn't hold as a modem for determining the legal validity of a postmodern legal conundrum.

Originally Posted by Chibi Neko
I guess it may not 'seem' fair to the men, but the fact is that the reproductive right is the woman's alone. 9 months of bodily changes and childbirth pain and risks are things that men do not have to worry about.
This is not an issue of reproductive rights (although at certain points they intersect insofar as the mother chooses to abort the child) but parental obligations.

Originally Posted by ChikiNebo
Besides, if a man really wants a child to raise and love, why not adopt? Adopted children require the same things.
For the same reasons that millions of familes in the U.S. don't adopt: they want their own biological children.

FELIPE NO

Last edited by lordjames; Mar 11, 2006 at 04:49 PM.
Lord Jaroh
It's all about being a Newbie


Member 2072

Level 13.42

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 06:57 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 06:57 PM #88 of 178
Originally Posted by lordjames
This mode of thinking is outdated and doesn't correspond to the realities of the world today. Therefore, it doesn't hold as a modem for determining the legal validity of a postmodern legal conundrum.
The only problem I have with your statements was this one. Just because it is the reality today, doesn't make it right.

Drugs are everywhere today, simple reality. Should we then have government controlled institutions to allow people to go and get high? Smoke a joint, sniff some coke, etc.? How about underage drinking? Teens do it all the time, should we thus allow teens to do it in regulated environments?

That mode of thinking is not really that outdated. It's simply that people today do not have any sense of responsibility to this world. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault, and they look for the easy way out.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you're going to go around fucking like an adult, then should something happen and you become pregnant, then that's too bad. It's time to grow up and act like a fucking adult. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change.

As I said before, there are always exceptions to the rule, via rape victims, true health risks, etc, but abortion should not become the accepted normality of the situation.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
Invasion of the Canuck Mysogynist.

I love how all the pro-lifers in this thread react to an abortion as if it were like filling out a prescription. Since when does an invasive surgery that could potentially make you a social outcast become the easy way out?
Excuse me? I'm a mysogynist for not agreeing with abortion? I know that it's not as "simple as filling out a prescription", but it is a hell of a lot easier than having to change your lifestyle and raise another human being for the next 18 years of your life. Abortion is clearly "the easy way out".

Originally Posted by a lurker
* Outlawing abortion seems like a very quick and easy solution for those among us who have a child's view of morality. Limiting rights doesn't mean the same as equal rights, you obnoxious dicks.
Really? Would you care to enlighten me as to my "child's view of morality" then? Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that men should be able to say "I don't want this kid, go get an abortion". I'm for abolishing abortion as an alternative form of birth control, as to which it is used now.

If you don't want a kid, don't fuck. It's a very simple equation. If you want to fuck, then use proper protection, but realize that if something happens, only yourself is to blame and accept responsibility for the outcome.

Most amazing jew boots
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 07:27 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 07:27 PM #89 of 178
Quote:
I'm for abolishing abortion as an alternative form of birth control, as to which it is used now.
An alternative form of birth control would imply that one has reasonable options regarding the avoidance of a birth. Paying hundreds of dollars for an invasive surgery is hardly an "alternative." Especially when an abortion becomes the only course of action to avoid birth at the stage of pregnancy. It's not as if we can beam a fetus out of the womb and into an artificial one.

The idea that an abortion has come to be seen as a method of birth control in society is ludicrous. I don't know what kind of retarded white trash you live around, but society has hardly come to the point where an abortion is considered to be anything but a last resort.

Quote:
Excuse me? I'm a mysogynist for not agreeing with abortion?
I was still in the mindset of discussing Male Reproductive Rights.

Quote:
The simple fact of the matter is, if you're going to go around fucking like an adult, then should something happen and you become pregnant, then that's too bad. It's time to grow up and act like a fucking adult. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change.
How is electing to have an abortion not a responsible decision? If you have A. no economic ability to effectively raise a child, B. well aware that in giving up the child for adoption it becomes a burden of the state, which is clearly not in the best interests for the child, and C. that because of these conditions, electing to have this child could result in a much lower standard of living for any of your successive children, then how is electing to have an abortion in order to preserve the status quo not a responsible decision? It would be irresponsible to bring the child into a world where it could not be properly cared for, or shoved around like livestock.

Not to mention the concern of health risks, which apparently nobody has picked up on. I provided an example where David's mom had a weak heart, and possibly couldn't survive child birth. However, there is no guarantee that she will die from child birth, it is simply a matter of increased risk. How then, do we determine the acceptable level of risk for an abortion when all women are in danger of losing their life in the process of child birth? It would have to be performed on a case by case basis, and doing so would likely cost the state more money in the process, as well as bring the mother to a term in the pregnancy that is at the current time considered beyond the legal allowance.

What happens in this situation? Do you terminate a being that by legal account is now considered to be a child, or do you force the mother to risk her life in order to birth the child?

Not to mention that this still comes back to your argument of responsibility avoidance, and that by aborting a child that threatens her life, the mother is essentially shirking the responsibilities placed on her by her weak heart. Clearly, by your reasoning, if she didn't want to risk her life she should have never had sex, and that she should suck it up and take it like a woman (or take it out, as the case may be).

To you, somebody with a "Child's view of morality" this previously black and white view of moral action has become muddied. Perhaps you will figure out a way to rhetoricize your way out of these scenarios, but ultimately, in your view of the world, everybody loses.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Lord Jaroh
It's all about being a Newbie


Member 2072

Level 13.42

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 08:07 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 08:07 PM #90 of 178
Originally Posted by Bradylama
An alternative form of birth control would imply that one has reasonable options regarding the avoidance of a birth. Paying hundreds of dollars for an invasive surgery is hardly an "alternative." Especially when an abortion becomes the only course of action to avoid birth at the stage of pregnancy. It's not as if we can beam a fetus out of the womb and into an artificial one.
One has many reasonable options to avoid a birth. First, there's abstinence, there's the pills and plastic, as well, there are surgical procedures to tie off tubes, and a little snip and tuck there. Voila, avoiding birth. If you don't want kids, don't tempt fate.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
The idea that an abortion has come to be seen as a method of birth control in society is ludicrous. I don't know what kind of retarded white trash you live around, but society has hardly come to the point where an abortion is considered to be anything but a last resort.
Whereas I don't even think it should be an option, or last resort, as you put it. The facts are thousands of teens use abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, and still go on withtheir lifestyle, namely fucking around, without protection. They always have the choice of abortion if it happens. If they didn't have that choice, maybe they would take more precautions...

Originally Posted by =Bradylama
I was still in the mindset of discussing Male Reproductive Rights.
No harm, no foul.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
How is electing to have an abortion not a responsible decision?
Because the responsible decision is to not have sex if you don't want to deal with the consequences. The responsible decision is to make sure that your life is ready when and if you want to have kids. You make these decisions ahead of time. You prepare yourself for your future, you do not live in the now, and deal with things when they come.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
If you have A. no economic ability to effectively raise a child, B. well aware that in giving up the child for adoption it becomes a burden of the state, which is clearly not in the best interests for the child, and C. that because of these conditions, electing to have this child could result in a much lower standard of living for any of your successive children, then how is electing to have an abortion in order to preserve the status quo not a responsible decision? It would be irresponsible to bring the child into a world where it could not be properly cared for, or shoved around like livestock.
How did our parents do it? And our grandparents? And on and on. During the Depression there was no economic stability anywhere, and yet people still had kids. When they did, they worked harder to make ends meet, and provide for the family.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
Not to mention the concern of health risks, which apparently nobody has picked up on. I provided an example where David's mom had a weak heart, and possibly couldn't survive child birth. However, there is no guarantee that she will die from child birth, it is simply a matter of increased risk. How then, do we determine the acceptable level of risk for an abortion when all women are in danger of losing their life in the process of child birth? It would have to be performed on a case by case basis, and doing so would likely cost the state more money in the process, as well as bring the mother to a term in the pregnancy that is at the current time considered beyond the legal allowance.
I'm at risk of dying every single morning that I wake up. I could slip in the tub. I could get in a car accident. Something could fall on me or blow up while I'm at work. Doesn't stop me from waking up in the morning and continuing on with my life. If there is a health risk to do something, you do something to lessen that risk as much as possible. Get her tubes tied. There, no pregnancy, no risk of death during child birth.

If someone were to have a kid, and there was a clear health risk, then certainly, I would certainly see that having an abortion would be necessary. But as well, tubes would be tied, so that anything in the future like that would be prevented.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
What happens in this situation? Do you terminate a being that by legal account is now considered to be a child, or do you force the mother to risk her life in order to birth the child?
What did we do before abortion?

Originally Posted by Bradylama
Not to mention that this still comes back to your argument of responsibility avoidance, and that by aborting a child that threatens her life, the mother is essentially shirking the responsibilities placed on her by her weak heart. Clearly, by your reasoning, if she didn't want to risk her life she should have never had sex, and that she should suck it up and take it like a woman (or take it out, as the case may be).
If there was no possibility to know about a weak heart in advance, then abortion should be allowed. If, however, she knew she had a weak heart, and did it anyway, without any preventative measures, then suck it up.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
To you, somebody with a "Child's view of morality" this previously black and white view of moral action has become muddied. Perhaps you will figure out a way to rhetoricize your way out of these scenarios, but ultimately, in your view of the world, everybody loses.
Everybody is already losing in "my world". Our society is degrading at an amazing rate, because we live in a generation that wants everything given to them with the minimal amount of work possible. People have no respect for other people, there is no responsibility taken for one's own actions. Because of this, we look to others to provide our easy way outs, so that we can live life in ease.

Life is risk. Without them, it would be dull and boring, and ultimately worthless. But you take those risks and go with them, and see where it leads you. I look at abortion the same as I look at suicide. There is no reason to. Suicide is a cop out, and I have no respect for anyone who would choose it as a viable alternative to living. Abortion is the easy way out for too many people out there, so that they can go ahead and live their life the same way, without repercutions. It's not a "choice" that should be allowed, unless in the most extreme of circumstances.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by Lord Jaroh; Mar 11, 2006 at 08:17 PM.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 09:02 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 09:02 PM #91 of 178
Quote:
Whereas I don't even think it should be an option, or last resort, as you put it. The facts are thousands of teens use abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, and still go on withtheir lifestyle, namely fucking around, without protection. They always have the choice of abortion if it happens. If they didn't have that choice, maybe they would take more precautions...
They wouldn't. Teens love to fuck. They're developing and horny, and no amount of risk involved with sex is going to stop them. It was just as bad with our parent's generation as it is with ours.

Teen pregnancy is mostly an issue of ignorance, because our sexual education is highly inadequate, and access to contraceptives is limited, at best. It's easy to preach responsibility an acting grown up to a group of people that aren't considered to be legal adults.

Quote:
Because the responsible decision is to not have sex if you don't want to deal with the consequences. The responsible decision is to make sure that your life is ready when and if you want to have kids. You make these decisions ahead of time. You prepare yourself for your future, you do not live in the now, and deal with things when they come.
Because abstinence or the proper use of birthcontrol is responsible, that does not invalidate the election to have an abortion as a responsible decision. That's the same reasoning as saying it's responsible to maintain a strong military, but that we should never use it.

Quote:
How did our parents do it? And our grandparents? And on and on. During the Depression there was no economic stability anywhere, and yet people still had kids. When they did, they worked harder to make ends meet, and provide for the family.
They did it because they wanted their kids. They fucked like rabbits because they wanted kids. If a woman considers having an abortion, the first thing on her mind is always "Do I want this baby?" We are asssuming that she has elected, no, she does not want it. The reasonings behind that decision are myriad, and indeterminable, but if they are for certain reasons, such as the one considered above, I'd call it fairly responsible.

Quote:
I'm at risk of dying every single morning that I wake up. I could slip in the tub. I could get in a car accident. Something could fall on me or blow up while I'm at work. Doesn't stop me from waking up in the morning and continuing on with my life. If there is a health risk to do something, you do something to lessen that risk as much as possible. Get her tubes tied. There, no pregnancy, no risk of death during child birth.
If you want to avoid the risk in driving, you don't drive. If you want to avoid the risk in waking up in every morning, then you'd probably elect not to wake up, which is comedy. You have the freedoms to choose how you lead your life, and you elect to risk your life every day when you drive. In having an abortion, a woman's risk is averted, much like how you'd avert the risk of driving by taking public transit.

Quote:
What did we do before abortion?
Infanticide. Then abortion.

If the child was wanted, the birth would be forced. If the child wasn't wanted, then people would find a back alley quack to perform a coat hanger abortion, or fly their children to some European country to have the operation performed.

Before we developed the tools and sterility necessary for abortions, ancient man practiced infanticide when the tribe could not afford to raise a new child. This may have eventually been justified in sacrifice to gods as man developed more advanced moral reasoning, but where the practice of infanticide ends, and abortion begins is probably impossible to determine, since they've always been considered necessary taboos, much like sex itself.

Quote:
If there was no possibility to know about a weak heart in advance, then abortion should be allowed. If, however, she knew she had a weak heart, and did it anyway, without any preventative measures, then suck it up.
But what if she used a contraceptive and still got pregnant? There's no way to determine if it was used correctly, and yet she still took the precautions necessary to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, your recourse is to not have the abortion to begin with, since the only supposedly responsible decision is not to have sex.

Consider this, however. If there was no way to know about a person's particular health risks going into a pregnancy, then why even allow health-related abortions in the first place? The woman will give birth and die, or not, and nobody would be any the wiser that her heart was too big, or whatever.

So you can either have abortions for everybody, or abortions for none. Pick and choose, you can't rationalize around your base reasoning.

Quote:
Everybody is already losing in "my world". Our society is degrading at an amazing rate, because we live in a generation that wants everything given to them with the minimal amount of work possible. People have no respect for other people, there is no responsibility taken for one's own actions. Because of this, we look to others to provide our easy way outs, so that we can live life in ease.
And how many people do you know that live like this? If the current generation was honestly as bad as you claim it to be, then why hasn't the economy bottomed out of itself?

Quote:
Life is risk. Without them, it would be dull and boring, and ultimately worthless. But you take those risks and go with them, and see where it leads you. I look at abortion the same as I look at suicide. There is no reason to.
I see you've elected for no abortions. You are done in this thread, further discussion is pointless.

How ya doing, buddy?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 09:24 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 07:24 PM #92 of 178
Originally Posted by Bradylama
Teen pregnancy is mostly an issue of ignorance, because our sexual education is highly inadequate, and access to contraceptives is limited, at best. It's easy to preach responsibility an acting grown up to a group of people that aren't considered to be legal adults.
Teen pregnancy rates haven't been this low since the 1940's. At least in America. We all have abstinence to thank for that.... and oral sex. The teen pregnancy issue is completely overblown. The only generation that has a right to judge today's teenagers is their grandparents.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2006, 10:22 PM Local time: Mar 11, 2006, 10:22 PM #93 of 178
Sarcasm, Dev.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 12:07 AM #94 of 178
Originally Posted by lordjames
Then the mother would have to determine whether she can raise the child without the support of the father. If she can, then she could continue with the planned pregnancy and raise the child by herself, a phenomenon that has become increasingly common today. If not, then she could decide to have the child aborted and not be burdened with the responsibility of providing for a child by herself. In the case of the father, theoretically, he would need to release himself of those parental responsibilities during the period in which the mother could legally proceed with an abortion, allowing her the freedom to decide whether she wants to have the baby by herself or not.
You're insane.

Under the current law, neither parent is free to abandon the living child. The father has to provide support, but he does not have to provide sole support. How does your plan make anything equal at all?

There is also the fact that your plan will encourage more abortions, something that no one wants. Even pro-choice people want to limit abortions where possible.

Also, under the current law, the phenomon of women raising their children without any support from the fathers whatsoever is only becoming more common because of deadbeats, which are against the law and not at all the mother's choice. Are you Gohan?


Quote:
This is how a theoretical male abortion might take place. The logic is interesting,
The logic isn't interesting, it's vile and wholly selfish.

Double Post:
Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh
Really? Would you care to enlighten me as to my "child's view of morality" then? Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that men should be able to say "I don't want this kid, go get an abortion". I'm for abolishing abortion as an alternative form of birth control, as to which it is used now.
Under your plan, many more men who never wanted children in the first place now have to support them, ruining their lives etc etc. Taking everyone's rights away is only equivilant to giving men rights in the eyes of a child who likes taking the morally easy way out.

Does that help you?


Double Post:
Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh
What did we do before abortion?
There has always been abortion, my friend. Some of the earliest Egyptian texts are on abortative measures and pregnancy prevention. Abortion is in the bible - I believe if you abort the child before it starts moving around in the mother, it's okay by God. That might be old testament though, I dont' really know.

There was also very poor to non-existant health standards. People frequently buried their children. if they had less children from family planning, they would not have to bury any of them. This is less a concern in America (except in the really shitty places), and much much more of a concern in the third-world. Therefore, I would not expect you to know them, because you have a child's view of morality.


What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Last edited by Sarag; Mar 12, 2006 at 12:15 AM. Reason: Automerged double post.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 08:02 AM Local time: Mar 12, 2006, 06:02 AM #95 of 178
Originally Posted by Devo
more mothers might be putting their girls on birth control, saying it's an "acne" medicine.
ahahah!!! I almost fell outta my chair laughing at that.

Originally Posted by Devo
Oh snap

Sorry Watts
Yeah it's okay.... but that was pretty funny. Possibly true. Anything's possible

FELIPE NO
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 08:04 AM #96 of 178
Quote:
Abortion is in the bible - I believe if you abort the child before it starts moving around in the mother, it's okay by God. That might be old testament though, I dont' really know.
Er, not really. There is a passage that people use to support their anti-abortion opinions, but it doesn't say anything like that.

Quote:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." --Exodus 21:22-25
This seems to imply that killing a fetus is the same thing as killing a person.

How ya doing, buddy?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 08:29 AM Local time: Mar 12, 2006, 08:29 AM #97 of 178
But is the passage talking about the damage made to the fetus, or to the mother?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 08:30 AM #98 of 178
Clearly the fetus.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 08:40 AM Local time: Mar 12, 2006, 08:40 AM #99 of 178
No, it's not clear at all. The passage only gives mention of the premature birthing, but no indication that a child has been damaged at all. Then it makes a general reference to the rule of an eye for an eye. Since it is the husband that has to sue for the damages, the assumtion is being made that the wife is incapable of such duties, which to me, implies damage to his pregnant wife.

What would be more important at this point, the baby or the baby factory?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 08:58 AM #100 of 178
Uh... okay. And people wonder why the Bible gets interpreted "so many ways."

The husband sues because the wife has no rights. This is the kind of society you're dealing with.

It talks about injury in the same sentence that it mentions premature birth. How could it be anymore clear?

Like you said, there is already the eye for an eye rule. Why would they reiterate it for a pregnant woman?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Male Reproductive Rights

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tories want new US-Style Bill of Rights Robo Jesus Political Palace 4 Jul 3, 2006 04:44 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.