The Abortion Debate

[The_Thread _Reaper]

Aino Ailill

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

Aino Ailill

Great, so we like sex. Why is that bad?

Short answer: Because it's being exploited. Everywhere. By everyone. What if I put a little *gropes* emote? Changes the whole meaning of what I'm saying, right?

I still fail to see the problem. Religion is also prevalent. Should we impose harsh penalties against those who 'abuse' it?

Quote:

Aino Ailill

Some sex is done for the purpose of reproducing. As stated, there are numerous other reasons for this. We are no longer controlled solely by our primitive brain. No longer is it that every time we have sex do we do it, even partially for children.

Not solely, no, but it is not a conscious choice to turn it off and so we are influenced by it no matter what. Even if you have no conscious intention of having children, that part of your brain will still be active. Is this fundamentally wrong? No, but you're falling victim to traps and cons that careful thinkers have set up.

1 - If it is not fundamentally wrong, what is the problem.
2 - Can you prove that every time we have sex, this desire to have children is, in some way, triggered?

@2- I'd REALLY like to see him prove that. I don't want to reproduce, not even on a subconscious level. If anything, my subconscious is specifically telling me I DON'T want to reproduce.

Even further, when around small children and infants that twitch is telling me to get away from them. No motherly instinct..nothing.

Why would people like me exist and still enjoy/want sex if there's a base level aversion to reproduction?

[Oni no Tenshi]

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

Oni no Tenshi

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

]

linaloki

So, you condone torture to prevent crime?

If that's what it takes.

And this is where I point you to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Bill Of Rights.

Funny how people will take something they claim is their 'right' and use it to justify horrible crimes.

Wait a second. I'm saying that if there is truly to be a "punishment" for abortion, then it needs to be CONVENTIONAL punishment.

How is TORTURE ok for women who abort, but NOT ok for the worst child rapist?

Do you suggest that we chop off hands for stealing, dicks for raping, and draw and quarter people who dare to question the status quo?

And, if you condone torture, then who should be the one deciding the severity or what crimes deserve it?

[IfItWereOnlyThatSimple]

Talon-chan

TY simple

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

The first thing that comes to mind is that it encourages apathy and carelessness. You set up a safety net for people who really need it, and people who really don't will take up most of the space (and funding). That's part of why I said earlier - I would like to make exceptions for certain cases (ie. people who have what could be considered 'responsible sex' but fall victim to the astronomically low failure rate of correctly used multiple protection, and rape victims) but I can't think of any logical way to structure such a system so that it could not easily be exploited, or would not encourage even unhealthier ways of thinking (ie. falsifying a rape case in order to obtain an abortion.)

Another reason is the sheerly astronomical amount of sex that is occurring anyway. People put it higher on their priority lists than anything else, and that leaves gaping vulnerabilities in our societies, in our corporate structures...even in our hobbies. If pregnancy or an equivalent punishment were possible risks, the problem would correct itself over time.

There are more, but I think that is enough to chew on, for now.

Funding is done by the individual. If I want to pay 1000 dollars for plastic surgery, for some stupid item on ebay, or for an abortion that should be my perogative. Funding should not be a reason to ban abortion unless it were state sponsored.

So to get to the crux of the issue: Abortion is used like a safety net against pregnancy which causes people to be apathetic and careless about sex (read: promiscuous - they don't care who they sleep with and they don't care if they get pregnant). Wanting to ban abortion has nothing to do, then, with fetuses/rights to life. Is this correct?

It would, if I could support that notion at all, but since it comes down to personal belief, I haven't bothered.

Talon-chan

First, does not contraception do the same thing to sex? Because condoms are so convenient and easy to carry with me, I am allowed to be fearless, apathetic and careless about whom I sleep with (permitting promiscuity), unlike prior to then when I would have had a constant fear of pregnancy prompting me to never have sex until married and then only with my husband. I ask you then, are you against contraception in the same way you are against abortion (and as a consequence seek to punish, with torture if necessary, those who would use contraception)? If not, why not?

While they do lower the rate of said undesirable consequence (pregnancy) significantly, abortion lowers the magnitude of it, when it does happen. I do not think it is necessary to increase both of these in order to change the paradigm. If abortion were left legal, and contraception were instead outlawed... well, the number of affected parties would increase. It has been pointed out that abortion, while significantly less undesirable than childbirth, is still painful and costly. I do not know whether that would be better or worse.

Talon-chan

Also, I'm sure you put it somewhere else (please redirect me), but why is sex something we should care about (that is, we shouldn't be promiscuous, and sex should not be something we are apathetic/careless about) in the first place?


E* NVM, I see you posted a few posts up about it. I will respond in a few minutes.

OK :O

[Emperor Fluffzorz]

Oni no Tenshi

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

Oni no Tenshi

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

]

linaloki

So, you condone torture to prevent crime?

If that's what it takes.

And this is where I point you to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Bill Of Rights.

Funny how people will take something they claim is their 'right' and use it to justify horrible crimes.

Wait a second. I'm saying that if there is truly to be a "punishment" for abortion, then it needs to be CONVENTIONAL punishment.

How is TORTURE ok for women who abort, but NOT ok for the worst child rapist?

Do you suggest that we chop off hands for stealing, dicks for raping, and draw and quarter people who dare to question the status quo?

And, if you condone torture, then who should be the one deciding the severity or what crimes deserve it?

Simple answer - me! Wait, no, it would be a bit biased then... going around performing horrible upside-down-crucifixions on those who use religion to justify tyranny, cutting the eyes out of people who judge on appearance, the tongues out of people who denounce people and beliefs out of hatred, shock therapy for those who won't get the idea of acceptance into their ******** heads willingly... yeah, it would be a bit too much in our favour, wouldn't it?

[KieranMD]

Honestly, I think it's up to the woman. If she wants to have an abortion, it is her body that's doing all the work. I think adoption is a little kinder, but that's not always a choice. Birth control is fine with me as well.

[RoseRose]

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

RoseRose

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

I suppose dancing naked in a place where you can be seen, and screeming obscenities out the window at passers-by is A-OK, then? Smash the censor, sort of thing?

In my personal belief system... Just about. I haven't decided about the dancing naked in a public place, but, if I were to follow my system to it's limits, yeah. I'm trying to figure out a way to hold true to my system and not allow public naked dancing... sexual harassment is where I'm getting. If you're doing it with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of making people feel uncomfortable, it's not okay. If you're doing it because you think it's fun... I haven't figured it out all the way yet.

neutral Then we're down to personal motives and so on. When I said objective I also meant "clear-cut". You know, so that there wouldn't ever be a huge trial, a judge could just say "Sorry sir, but that is not your business judging by article X.Y of the 'none of your ******** business' act." If you have even an inch of hazy borders like this, people will take a mile.

And so? I believe in free expression... to an extreme. I honestly have very little problem with nudity and profanity. You've got a kid? Cover their ears and eyes. Private places can still ban whatever they want- private property rights. Different values here, i think.

Quote:

RoseRose

Quote:

Those who absolutely refuse to give birth...they will find...ways...of getting it done without hurting themselves or letting anyone know that they were ever pregnant. As luck would have it, I happen to know that many of you in this thread have already procured such treatments. Otherwise, they will have the tools they need to carry through with the pregnancy.

Most of those DIY treatments aren't all that safe, and the ones that are, are the least effective. Also, the herbs needed aren't always readily available. It will happen more... but women will die from getting DIYs and illegal abortions if abortion is made illegal. Happened before Roe v Wade.

Yup. It will happen on occasion. Just like how occasional women use no protection and simply get an abortion whenever they get pregnant. It's not common enough to be a major issue.

Wrong. Abortion Deaths This website shows the deaths before Roe v. Wade when abortion was illegal. Do you really think they'll be any different if it becomes illegal again?

Quote:

RoseRose

Quote:

Quote:

I honestly don't understand. I understand your words, but I do not understand your logical reasoning as to why it is necessary to have a dire consequence to having sex and being childfree.

Having sex as a childfree couple, as with any couple, is a huge undertaking that not everyone is ready for...as it stands, some people simply reflect on it and think, "Wow, that was a huge waste of time." Some think less worksafe thoughts. Some are still together, and some are apart but do not regret the experience. Perhaps I am misconstruing Pascal's wager: if you throw in the risk of complete pregnancy, how many of them would have never formed in the first place? The less stable ones would have evaporated before even getting to this point. The more stable ones would still be together. The sundered but happy ones would not know any difference. There is at least a zero difference and at most a great improvement in every case. However, this is tempered by the fact that rare cases would be burdened with a pregnancy (the threat is no good unless it is carried through with.) As the negative relationships would not have formed in the first place, they are immaterial. This leaves relationships that would be ongoing, and those which would be broken up. Chances are, some will turn sour, some will cause an increased bonding, and some will be unaffected. Zero sum. Net gain: positive.

Huh? Again, not following the logic here. To me, your point just seems illogical. (But then, I'm very libertarian.)

Okay. Basically, I'm saying, for childfree couples, the net gain is positive:
-Abortion legal:
-incompatible pairings who still get together anyway, may have an abortion but whatever
-abusive child-free relationships, may have an abortion but whatever
-happy, ongoing relationships, may have an abortion but whatever
-happy relationships ended for whatever reason (maybe abortion but probably not)

-Abortion illegal:
-incompatible pairings never take off, because the risk is there. Net gain: positive
-abusive relationships break the 'seriousness' barrier with the risk of pregnancy. Net gain: positive.
-happy, ongoing relationships - on the off-chance that pregnancy does occur (and these people will be committed enough to take every precaution) it will not affect their relationship. Net gain: neutral.
-happy relationships ended for whatever reason - a child may sunder the relationship or it may bring them back together. Net gain: neutral.

So, in the second case, the net gain is either positive or neutral, which can only indicate a positive outcome for childfree couples from this suggestion.

I see your logic, and I disagree. A bad childfree relationship can be a learning experience, just like any other relationship. Abusive relationships will happen anyway... and possibly more dangerously to the woman.

Quote:

Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause18 , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.19

From Get the Facts

So... I say it's a net loss. The woman could die if she doesn't get an abortion. As for the childfree couples who are good, and get pregnant, illegal abortion has a negative net gain. Period. Illegal abortions are more dangerous.

[Emperor Fluffzorz]

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

Oni no Tenshi

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

]

linaloki

So, you condone torture to prevent crime?

If that's what it takes.

And this is where I point you to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Bill Of Rights.

Funny how people will take something they claim is their 'right' and use it to justify horrible crimes.

Funny how you take your interpretation of "rights" and use it to interpret them as flexible bodies as opposed to hard, fast, unbreakable law with blatantly stated punishment for their circumvention.

Also, abortion is a horrible crime, but torture isn't? I'm sorry, I've seen enough of your writing to know you aren't that ******** stupid. Grow up. You know better than that.

[IfItWereOnlyThatSimple]

The_Thread _Reaper

I'll just sum up my point very quickly. You came across as pretending to know what and what isn't the perfect moral code. I wanna know why you think you know so much when none of us can be sure. I might not hold the absolute moral code, but who is anyone to say that they KNOW that one is better than another? What gives you the right to assert your morals over mine?

Reasoning.

I assert my hypothesis. You assert your antithesis. From these two, we can create a synthesis. One of us asserts an antithesis to this synthesis. And so it continues.

The_Thread _Reaper

And as for the whole "business" thing, I'd say that if something directly involves you or includes you having to make a decision, it's your business.

Example: How you have sex is not my business. That's between you and your partner, and I have no say as I'm not participating or being affected by your acts. So whatever you do is up to you, and I would have no place marching into your bedroom dictating what you have to do with yourself and your partner.

Everything has an effect on other people. If you happen to not be properly satisfied one evening, then you may be grumpy the next day. I don't know what industry you work in, but say for example services, you may respond curtly to a customer, who may happen to be a gossip, and cost your workplace hundreds of dollars.

The_Thread _Reaper

See what I'm getting at yet?

I think so, but as far as I can tell, it's an appeal to common sense.

The_Thread _Reaper

And ad hom? What? Some people don't have maternal instincts, and some people aren't meant to be parents. I'm one of 'em, I'd know first hand.

Sorry, I was feeling kind of persecuted at the time and your statement sounded a little self-flagellating >.<

The_Thread _Reaper

And please state the points you mean to make. Either I missed it or didn't see it as important. This thread goes a mile a minute and I've been offline all day.

I...I've reiterated them in the past couple pages...

[RedRoseSpiral]

I'm still waiting for your proof that sex is being exploited everywhere by everyone.

RedRoseSpiral

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

Aino Ailill

Great, so we like sex. Why is that bad?

Short answer: Because it's being exploited. Everywhere. By everyone. What if I put a little *gropes* emote? Changes the whole meaning of what I'm saying, right?

Do you have proof of this? This maybe a fallacy, but I know I am not exploiting sex. Which means that your little "it's beeing exploited. Everywhere. By everyone" is bullshit.

[Talon-chan]

Simple - last post 6013

[The_Thread _Reaper]

IfItWereOnlyThatSimple

The_Thread _Reaper

I'll just sum up my point very quickly. You came across as pretending to know what and what isn't the perfect moral code. I wanna know why you think you know so much when none of us can be sure. I might not hold the absolute moral code, but who is anyone to say that they KNOW that one is better than another? What gives you the right to assert your morals over mine?

Reasoning.

I assert my hypothesis. You assert your antithesis. From these two, we can create a synthesis. One of us asserts an antithesis to this synthesis. And so it continues.

The_Thread _Reaper

And as for the whole "business" thing, I'd say that if something directly involves you or includes you having to make a decision, it's your business.

Example: How you have sex is not my business. That's between you and your partner, and I have no say as I'm not participating or being affected by your acts. So whatever you do is up to you, and I would have no place marching into your bedroom dictating what you have to do with yourself and your partner.

Everything has an effect on other people. If you happen to not be properly satisfied one evening, then you may be grumpy the next day. I don't know what industry you work in, but say for example services, you may respond curtly to a customer, who may happen to be a gossip, and cost your workplace hundreds of dollars.

The_Thread _Reaper

See what I'm getting at yet?

I think so, but as far as I can tell, it's an appeal to common sense.

The_Thread _Reaper

And ad hom? What? Some people don't have maternal instincts, and some people aren't meant to be parents. I'm one of 'em, I'd know first hand.

Sorry, I was feeling kind of persecuted at the time and your statement sounded a little self-flagellating >.<

The_Thread _Reaper

And please state the points you mean to make. Either I missed it or didn't see it as important. This thread goes a mile a minute and I've been offline all day.

I...I've reiterated them in the past couple pages...

*blink*..Erm..an appeal to common sense..why does that sound negative coming from you?

And to your point about cause and effect..what's that got to do with abortion? Abortion only effects the woman who's getting one and possibly her partner. It's a difficult choice to make that requires a lot of soul-searching, counseling, and thought to go through with it, as does pregnancy. I don't think perfectly sound stable people that find it necessary to make that choice should be restricted because of the minority that may not take it seriously. There's going to be careless people no matter what, so why should the people who approach abortion with thought and caution be punished? Especially since you and I aren't part of their decision-making. Who are we to shake our finger at them and demand them to act a certain way and make certain sacrifices that they might not want/be able to/be prepared to make?

[loveltstone]

vindicated_angel

Okay, first I'd like to mention that out of all the abortions, a TINY percent are of raped women.

I'm pro-life across the board--I don't agree with capital punishment either, just to give you an idea on my views.

The thing about all this is that we don't have the right or the judgment to decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Your next argument may be that a fetus is not living yet--it has no free will. Well, we all say bacteria begins the moment it is created--before is has multiplied, matured, taken over a piece of glass. So then, the creation of life begins when sperm meets egg--that's the moment the fetus, in essence a child, is created. Therefore, abortion is murder.



Perhaps the meaner point of view--maybe a child is a punishment. The only basic reason we're having this argument is because women have decided to have sex without thinking of all the possible consequences. So maybe they ought to learn to grow up. Having sex before wanting to have a child is playing with chances and lives, and as human beings, we never have the upper hand.

i agree with her

[linaloki]

loveltstone

vindicated_angel

Okay, first I'd like to mention that out of all the abortions, a TINY percent are of raped women.

I'm pro-life across the board--I don't agree with capital punishment either, just to give you an idea on my views.

The thing about all this is that we don't have the right or the judgment to decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Your next argument may be that a fetus is not living yet--it has no free will. Well, we all say bacteria begins the moment it is created--before is has multiplied, matured, taken over a piece of glass. So then, the creation of life begins when sperm meets egg--that's the moment the fetus, in essence a child, is created. Therefore, abortion is murder.



Perhaps the meaner point of view--maybe a child is a punishment. The only basic reason we're having this argument is because women have decided to have sex without thinking of all the possible consequences. So maybe they ought to learn to grow up. Having sex before wanting to have a child is playing with chances and lives, and as human beings, we never have the upper hand.

i agree with her

You think all women should be forced to be pregnant against their will?

[Pretend Gheppetto]

its a lifeless ball of cells... what it could be is irrelevant... dump it if you so feel the need