Abortions.

[LogGrad98]

As far as the empathy piece goes, I believe BOTH deserve it in equal measure. Not sure how you can justify an exclusionary policy in this regard, unless you are personally only capable of empathy for one party at at time, or one sex. But I do not see how withholding empathy from the man does anything at all to further the case for the woman. That is like saying I can only love one of my children at a time, and to try to love them all at the same time would short-change them somehow. You seem to be sexist in this regard, tbh (the "wah" comment reinforces this notion). I think it is possible to be empathetic to both parties, and both sexes, considering this type of circumstance affects both of them. It does not mean the man is unaffected just because it is not his body that carries the child.

 

[Harambe]

yah. . . . I've been a bit fuzzy in my thinking, not a whole lot better than some others. If you are talking about "making a person responsible for themselves instead of having rules, laws, and regulations" I can see the women who are focused on their own rights to their own bodies using that kind of language in making their case for the "right" to have an abortion.

In a sense I would view a woman as a "government" or law, rule, and regulating authority over the human trying to achieve freedom one day from that "government" that does not allow him/her to vote, and denies it's actual humanity and value, and denies it any say in the "government" that most directly and most absolutely is claiming dicatorial power of his/her life, over his/her very existence.

I am saying that the woman does NOT have the moral authority or perogative to terminate human life, any more than Hitler, Stalin, or any of a hundred or thousands of other persons who have gone on some career or another terminating the lives of others because those "others" are somehow "inconvenient"

Giving one person that kind of "moral authority" over another is indeed going "over the line" on what I consider to be proper ground for our privileges.

So there are two things here. The first of which, that female that you're talking about having dictatorial power over the fetus is in for 9 months now has to change her way of living, oft dramatically. At the end of which, the "unimaginable pain" of labor. In essence, this just turns the power wheel to giving the fetus the dictatorial power over the female, theoretically similar to being a kidnap victim. So that argument ends in a stalemate.

The second, is the child really alive? Sure at the time of inception it's "alive". Sure it can feel pain at 20 weeks, and it comes out covered in gross crying, crapping, chewing on whatever comes near it's mouth and pulling on your hair as soon as it can. Great. But does it know it's alive(self-aware)? A lot of people say no, a lot of people say yes. Going down the no path, hidden in that question is yet another question; If you never knew you were alive, is it really a problem if you're not?

Any one of us could come up with a long, involved story of that child's life and use that possibility as foundation for why that child should live... but that's paying for potential. And as everyone here on this board has learned, as well as the Jazz front office(Looking at you KOC, for Andrei "albatross of a contract" Kirilenko), paying for potential alone is a bad idea.

In the history of human kind, we've done a lot of things I could consider to be improper or not according to sound moral reasoning. I could say the whole of human history is a universe of wrongs. So, aside from trying to point out the superior value system that nurtures life and propagates it throughout the cosmos, I sadly recognize that infanticide has been practiced in many times and many places for many reasons. In some cases it has been resorted to in the face of very serious stresses, limited space and resources. . . . an inability to actually care for the infant. We all have our ideas of what that amounts to, I suppose.

I sometimes see animals. . . cats and dogs. . . . eat their young. Surely they will eat the ones that die in their litter, sometimes they will eat live ones. I suspect some sense of smell is the trigger, but I believe overcrowding will trigger it as well.

I'm not in favor of empowering the government to round up women and jail them for having abortions. . . . or for not having them. . . . .

I do want the government to be limited. I do want the government to have laws against murder. I do know that infants at twenty weeks do feel pain, and I believe they have other senses we call "human" even before then. Any kind of logical line we can draw is easily questionable.

People who don't want kids, or who for any reason don't want to go through the birthing process, rank in my book as "none of my business", or "none of the government's business". But believing what I do about the value of human life, and life in general, it looks like an opportunity for those of us who share those values, to step and provide some kind of humane and compassionate alternative.

If you're looking to ditch a kid for any reason, drop him/her on my doorstep. We'd call it a blessing.;

We are so very close to agreeing on an end result. It's nearly identical. The difference ends up being what happens if you can't find a home for that child after exhausting all other options.

So lets create a save point there, and only start again from here. We're at the last boss(hooray!)

Theoretically, what happens if the mother and/or father does not have the means nor desire to care for this child, and the parents have exhausted all possibilities(I really can't imagine this actually happening, but lets say it does), what happens then?

 

[LogGrad98]

So there are two things here. The first of which, that female that you're talking about having dictatorial power over the fetus is in for 9 months now has to change her way of living, oft dramatically. At the end of which, the "unimaginable pain" of labor. In essence, this just turns the power wheel to giving the fetus the dictatorial power over the female, theoretically similar to being a kidnap victim. So that argument ends in a stalemate.

The second, is the child really alive? Sure at the time of inception it's "alive". Sure it can feel pain at 20 weeks, and it comes out covered in gross crying, crapping, chewing on whatever comes near it's mouth and pulling on your hair as soon as it can. Great. But does it know it's alive(self-aware)? A lot of people say no, a lot of people say yes. Going down the no path, hidden in that question is yet another question; If you never knew you were alive, is it really a problem if you're not?

Any one of us could come up with a long, involved story of that child's life and use that possibility as foundation for why that child should live... but that's paying for potential. And as everyone here on this board has learned, as well as the Jazz front office(Looking at you KOC, for Andrei "albatross of a contract" Kirilenko), paying for potential alone is a bad idea.



We are so very close to agreeing on an end result. It's nearly identical. The difference ends up being what happens if you can't find a home for that child after exhausting all other options.

So lets create a save point there, and only start again from here. We're at the last boss(hooray!)

Theoretically, what happens if the mother and/or father does not have the means nor desire to care for this child, and the parents have exhausted all possibilities(I really can't imagine this actually happening, but lets say it does), what happens then?

If the child is an infant, I think each state has different statutes for defining that, then there are "safe haven" laws that allow the mother to drop off the child at an approved location (like fire departments, hospitals, etc.) and the child will go into the foster care system, with zero repercussions for the mother. There are also ways to give up older children into foster care if there is a need.

There is also adoption as an option. We have some very close friends whose 16 year old daughter got pregnant. She opted to carry to term and then went into an open adoption. There is substantial demand for children in the adoption system, and they found a great couple who couldn't have kids that took in her son. It has been 5 years now and the arrangement has been way more than either of them hoped it would be. There are a lot of options beyond "kill or suffer the consequences" that seems to be what we are all lead to believe are the only choices.

 

[Harambe]

If the child is an infant, I think each state has different statutes for defining that, then there are "safe haven" laws that allow the mother to drop off the child at an approved location (like fire departments, hospitals, etc.) and the child will go into the foster care system, with zero repercussions for the mother. There are also ways to give up older children into foster care if there is a need.

There is also adoption as an option. We have some very close friends whose 16 year old daughter got pregnant. She opted to carry to term and then went into an open adoption. There is substantial demand for children in the adoption system, and they found a great couple who couldn't have kids that took in her son. It has been 5 years now and the arrangement has been way more than either of them hoped it would be. There are a lot of options beyond "kill or suffer the consequences" that seems to be what we are all lead to believe are the only choices.

Those are possibilities. The question was, if there is no other possibility, what then?

 

[LogGrad98]

Those are possibilities. The question was, if there is no other possibility, what then?

So if those are the possibilities, then why wouldn't there be possibilities?

 

[Harambe]

So if those are the possibilities, then why wouldn't there be possibilities?

You're the first person that's followed the logic through to that point. At least one person on here can follow the line of thinking without s*****ng themselves because at the end they have to admit they'd have the child put down, or kill themselves and hope that someone finds the child and cares for it.

It's hard to fathom a reason why they'd be put in that situation.. I believe at a time in China their answer to overpopulation was to allow only one child per female. Say that's how it is. Woman(lets say 16) is raped, and kept hostage as a rape dummy until she starts showing her pregnancy(2-3 months), and the guys don't wanna get a new one because they've contracted reverse stockholm syndrome. So they care for her until she has her child, and they don't know what to do. Before they can come to a consensus, the town posse has found them, and kills them.

The woman is saved, but now she has a child. She doesn't want it, hasn't finished school(so no means of providing for it), and feels it brings shame to her family. She wants to put it up for adoption, but it's female, and adoption agencies don't take female babies since they can't move them. They can't move them because family name is a big deal, and a little girl won't carry the family name on.

So is she stuck with it? Stuck with trying to provide for two mouths under complete destitution, likely ending in the death of both of them one cold winter night?

 

[♪alt13]

You're the first person that's followed the logic through to that point. At least one person on here can follow the line of thinking without s*****ng themselves because at the end they have to admit they'd have the child put down, or kill themselves and hope that someone finds the child and cares for it.

It's hard to fathom a reason why they'd be put in that situation.. I believe at a time in China their answer to overpopulation was to allow only one child per female. Say that's how it is. Woman(lets say 16) is raped, and kept hostage as a rape dummy until she starts showing her pregnancy(2-3 months), and the guys don't wanna get a new one because they've contracted reverse stockholm syndrome. So they care for her until she has her child, and they don't know what to do. Before they can come to a consensus, the town posse has found them, and kills them.

The woman is saved, but now she has a child. She doesn't want it, hasn't finished school(so no means of providing for it), and feels it brings shame to her family. She wants to put it up for adoption, but it's female, and adoption agencies don't take female babies since they can't move them. They can't move them because family name is a big deal, and a little girl won't carry the family name on.

So is she stuck with it? Stuck with trying to provide for two mouths under complete destitution, likely ending in the death of both of them one cold winter night?

lmao

that is all

 

[LogGrad98]

You're the first person that's followed the logic through to that point. At least one person on here can follow the line of thinking without s*****ng themselves because at the end they have to admit they'd have the child put down, or kill themselves and hope that someone finds the child and cares for it.

It's hard to fathom a reason why they'd be put in that situation.. I believe at a time in China their answer to overpopulation was to allow only one child per female. Say that's how it is. Woman(lets say 16) is raped, and kept hostage as a rape dummy until she starts showing her pregnancy(2-3 months), and the guys don't wanna get a new one because they've contracted reverse stockholm syndrome. So they care for her until she has her child, and they don't know what to do. Before they can come to a consensus, the town posse has found them, and kills them.

The woman is saved, but now she has a child. She doesn't want it, hasn't finished school(so no means of providing for it), and feels it brings shame to her family. She wants to put it up for adoption, but it's female, and adoption agencies don't take female babies since they can't move them. They can't move them because family name is a big deal, and a little girl won't carry the family name on.

So is she stuck with it? Stuck with trying to provide for two mouths under complete destitution, likely ending in the death of both of them one cold winter night?

If the hypothetical is not in America then I suppose that is one outcome. She can always leave the child in a church somewhere, or on the mayor's doorstep, or with a neighbor, or any other number of places. I suppose she could use it in a demonic sacrifice to gain the power necessary to curse her attackers and all of their offspring into the future, until one of their children's children carries one of her children's children up a mountain to a magical spring to break the curse. In America she can leave the child at, really any of those places too, or a designated safe haven location.

 

[Harambe]

If the hypothetical is not in America then I suppose that is one outcome. She can always leave the child in a church somewhere, or on the mayor's doorstep, or with a neighbor, or any other number of places. I suppose she could use it in a demonic sacrifice to gain the power necessary to curse her attackers and all of their offspring into the future, until one of their children's children carries one of her children's children up a mountain to a magical spring to break the curse. In America she can leave the child at, really any of those places too, or a designated safe haven location.

So force the tough decision and/or responsibility onto someone else? Pass the buck?

 

[moevillini]

You mean, if the father doesn't know enough to object to the drop off, presumably. Guess what? If a father is in possession of a baby that the mother does not realize exists (from amnesia, coma, denial, etc.), they can use the same safe haven laws. They have the same rights....

OK, yes. Theoretically possible. But stuff like this really doesn't advance your side of the argument at all, and would be better left unwritten.

Just my opinion, yes. But I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in saying this statement isn't helping your credibility.

 

[One Brow]

Let's simplify, you are against forcing a choice on the woman, but in favor of forcing a choice on the man. I am in favor of not forcing a choice on either one.

Unfortunately, you simplified wrongly. The choice is already "forced" upon the woman, who has to deal with negative repercussions regardless of her choice. I don't have a problem with negative repercussions being similarly forced upon the man.

 

[One Brow]

As far as the empathy piece goes, I believe BOTH deserve it in equal measure.

I'm sure you meant all three(sometime more).

Not sure how you can justify an exclusionary policy in this regard, unless you are personally only capable of empathy for one party at at time, or one sex. But I do not see how withholding empathy from the man does anything at all to further the case for the woman. That is like saying I can only love one of my children at a time, and to try to love them all at the same time would short-change them somehow. You seem to be sexist in this regard, tbh (the "wah" comment reinforces this notion). I think it is possible to be empathetic to both parties, and both sexes, considering this type of circumstance affects both of them. It does not mean the man is unaffected just because it is not his body that carries the child.

I have plenty of empathy for the men who are willing to make the sacrifices that result from the consequences of their actions. I don't have any for this whining about how men who have sex should be able to duck that responsibility.

 

[One Brow]

OK, yes. Theoretically possible. But stuff like this really doesn't advance your side of the argument at all, and would be better left unwritten.

Just my opinion, yes. But I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in saying this statement isn't helping your credibility.

Well, when you have a bunch of men whining about how unfair it is that, after they have sex, sometimes they have to be responsible for a baby, you don't really need a lot of credibility in the response. When they are complaining that all the rules favor women, you don't really have a huge credibility gap to overcome.

Since the point was about rights, I responded with rights. In similar situations, men have the same legal rights as women. Culturally, those are expressed differently, but that's part of the same culture that keeps women out of STEM fields and relegates the WNBA to a backwater status.

 

[Harambe]

Well, when you have a bunch of men whining about how unfair it is that, after they have sex, sometimes they have to be responsible for a baby, you don't really need a lot of credibility in the response. When they are complaining that all the rules favor women, you don't really have a huge credibility gap to overcome.

Since the point was about rights, I responded with rights. In similar situations, men have the same legal rights as women. Culturally, those are expressed differently, but that's part of the same culture that keeps women out of STEM fields and relegates the WNBA to a backwater status.

I think the argument here is that to get into "similar situation" where they will get the same power, a series of extraordinary and unfortunate events has to take place. The females on the other hand are defaulted with it naturally. It takes two to tango, so to create life in the first place both of them had to produce something(take rape out of the equation). After that happens, unless a series of extraordinary and unfortunate events takes place, the man never gets a say in anything.

It took two people to create life, but only one gets to decide the fate of said child.

 

[One Brow]

After that happens, unless a series of extraordinary and unfortunate events takes place, the man never gets a say in anything.

It took two people to create life, but only one gets to decide the fate of said child.

However, that's not because mothers have more rights. It's a side effect of patriarchy. Fathers have the same legal rights, but since laws are implemented by people, and people express their culture, the laws are implemented according to patriarchal standards.

 

[moevillini]

in other (dimly related) news...

Germany is now offering parents the option of leaving the "gender" blank on their newborn's birth certificate

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/germany-intersex_n_4181449.html

On Friday, Nov. 1, Germany will become the first country in the world to allow parents to leave the gender box blank on their child's birth certificate.

As reported in August, the move is an effort to create legal recognition for intersex individuals, or children born without a clearly determinable anatomical sex of male or female.

With babies reportedly born without clearly determinable genitalia at a rate of 1 in every 1,500 -- and many intersex individuals not exhibiting characteristics until later in life -- the legislation seeks "to take the pressure off parents to commit themselves to a gender immediately after birth."

"This will be the first time that the law acknowledges that there are human beings who are neither male nor female, or are both," stated University of Bremen law professor Konstanze Plett...

...Germany's move follows in the footsteps of Australia, which became the first country in the world to began allowing a third gender option, or "X," on passports in late 2011.

 

[moevillini]

just for the record, I favor a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy at least up until 26-28 weeks, no questions asked.

I don't really care how "unfair" to the man that may be. It's just the way it is. Do men feel it's unfair that they don't get to experience pregnancy? Do women feel it's unfair that they don't get to experience an erection? I don't know, and I don't think it matters.


I'm just curious with all the discussion that's been going on, how many of you personally know someone who has made the choice to terminate a pregnancy for any reason?

 

[Stoked]

just for the record, I favor a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy at least up until 26-28 weeks, no questions asked.

I don't really care how "unfair" to the man that may be. It's just the way it is. Do men feel it's unfair that they don't get to experience pregnancy? Do women feel it's unfair that they don't get to experience an erection? I don't know, and I don't think it matters.


I'm just curious with all the discussion that's been going on, how many of you personally know someone who has made the choice to terminate a pregnancy for any reason?

I know 3. And one that didn't terminate despite the violence associated with the pregnancy. I am a near abortion myself. My family found her just in time. Stupid runner...

 

[Harambe]

However, that's not because mothers have more rights. It's a side effect of patriarchy. Fathers have the same legal rights, but since laws are implemented by people, and people express their culture, the laws are implemented according to patriarchal standards.

Standards, when identified as BS, have been known to change when there's a clear moral issue at hand. Ex; Slavery, treatment of Native Americans, Gay Marriage

just for the record, I favor a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy at least up until 26-28 weeks, no questions asked.

I don't really care how "unfair" to the man that may be. It's just the way it is. Do men feel it's unfair that they don't get to experience pregnancy? Do women feel it's unfair that they don't get to experience an erection? I don't know, and I don't think it matters.

I'm just curious with all the discussion that's been going on, how many of you personally know someone who has made the choice to terminate a pregnancy for any reason?

I think I understand your position, and I respect it. It should be a choice thing.. if they can go through with it, make it happen. It's their body, not the guys, that will be taking the damage. By being forced into a pregnancy is being forced into servitude. I've always been pro choice, and always will be. At the same time, there still is an issue here that I can understand some people having. It's very valid. Until a better option can come about(fetus transfer, petrie dish, compensation plan, etc), the choice has to remain with the mother. Free think a little here. How could we fix that?

I've friends in both camps, abortion(1) and adoption(2). On the adoption front, my girlfriend had a child at 18 and gave it up for adoption. Up until the last few years she kept in touch with the parents, received photos and such. Overall she's glad she made the choice to give that child a loving home, but that little boy sometimes comes to her mind. My other friend in the adoption camp, who is normally quite guarded with her emotions freely admits that it almost killed her to give it up, but that she knew it was the right thing.

The abortion advocate is more a friend of my gf's. She's aged now, in her mid 40's. Nice enough lady and still good looking, but a tad wild, which I'm sure is what got her into the mess in the first place. It's really tough for me to judge because I don't exactly see her often. The only time she's talked about it while I was around, she had no visible signs of sadness or remorse. But she does say she's far more careful than she used to be after the scare. She also said that at her age, and already having had 3 kids, and single with no permanent boyfriend she just didn't feel she was up to another birthing process.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm sure you meant all three(sometime more).



I have plenty of empathy for the men who are willing to make the sacrifices that result from the consequences of their actions. I don't have any for this whining about how men who have sex should be able to duck that responsibility.

I guess since you refuse to see it as anything but whining when someone else has the choice to change your life completely and you can do nothing about it, and I refuse to acknowledge that men are never affected by an unwanted pregnancy, we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers!