Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#751 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2736 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-Choice, but I definitely would prefer no one get an abortion. We need better birth control, but conservatives think casual sex is icky and sinful so they do all they can to hinder advancement :/

More and more conservatives aren't even Christian, and even still - the vast majority aren't when we aren't talking about American conservatives (the majority of european conservatives aren't religious already)... Much less the idea that casual sex is icky. I feel that is a strawman a bit. This is from a pro-choice conservative (but not in mid second trimester, and definitely not third trimester abortions though).

Avatar image for sc
#752 Posted by SC (18106 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l:Welcome back! I figured as much. Mind you I only recently came back to CV myself too!

Ah okay, your wording seems strange regarding talking about a real example, vs a fantasy example. I assumed it was real sentiment originally, so I am not sure why you would need to emphasis with language modifiers (actually and not), to me specifically. Do you see how that can be confusing? Thank you for clarifying.

Also if you don't mind, I'd like to try something different than addressing each of your points. In your earlier post, a large portion of your text seemed to hinge on an assumption you were making, about the "standards of responsibility we" hold men and woman to, and some other assumptions you held, around that. It was fairly simple to address those points, because of the role of contraception methods available and how they differ between men and woman generally, and then affirming, actually, woman should still also be responsible and careful and how/why there are different specific concerns and risks for all manner of combinations of sexual/romantic partners. Talking about one doesn't mean, not acknowledging all of them. Are you and I saying that infertile men and woman shouldn't be responsible or caring when it comes to sex? See I am just assuming, you implicitly think that already. Maybe I am wrong to assume that though?

So I am going to try and address points where clarifications would help, and where their seem to be incorrect assumptions. Then later on, if I missed anything you thought was relevant, I can address that later. Cool?

My question regarding males forced to have sex was not rhetorical. If you want to answer with rape, thats fine, my answer would be that such a situation takes on its own unique legal and ethical consequences different than consensual sex. We can talk about those if you'd like and no, I am not saying that male rape victims don't exist. Also, I ask because, you don't actually seem to focus on mens ability to choose in many of these scenarios. You acknowledge it, but undermine the choice, by claiming its the only 'legitimate' choice, or you start to place emphasis on "society's standards for woman" the abstract, or start questioning why we don't ask woman to be 'responsible' we do, and you seem to overlook the nature of contraceptives available to both parties.

I 'fixate' on such scenarios, to demonstrate, its not a "gender war" issue, its medically, and legally, factually to do with the specific individual who is burdened the most by such an outcome. Traditionally that happens to be woman sure, but thats not why greater rights fall in their favor. If two people go to an Accident and Medical Emergency Clinic, and one has a gash on their arm, thats considered a low priority, and another has deep lacerations on their arms, neck, and abdomen, and considered a high priority, I assume, you would agree, the latter individual should be seen first right? Do their genders matter? Or is their different treatment based on the severity of injury, and potential loss of life determined by urgency?

I don't find talking about different gender combinations for parents, surrogate pregnancy, even if potentially rare, silly, if it helps demonstrate, this isn't mens vs womens rights. Rather, specifically, its about the rights of the individual, who carries the child within their body vs the rights of others. Medically, legally, its those such specifics that are more important. If someone wants to argue vague generalizations about how society treats men and woman when it comes to safe and responsible sex behaviors, sure! Thats an interesting conversation to have, but not as relevant to why "woman" who get pregnant have greater rights than those who aren't pregnant.

In the situation of assessing a fathers mental and emotional burden, when it comes to pregnancy, we can actually apply everything a father has to deal with, and then apply it to the mother, but with extra immediate burdens, including health. The only we can't apply, is the relative lack of choice they may suffer in comparison to the pregnant individual.

Remember my scenario about the two individuals in the emergency room? Well what if the guy, with the minor injury, has it on his face instead? It turns into a bigger scar because he wasn't seen first. What if his new scar causes him to feel shunned by society, and so he starts living in isolation, where he finds a magic diamond that grants him unimaginable powers, and kills and rapes (sexual rape) and then kills 30 billion people!! Yeah see... those stupid biased medical professionals should have seen him first right? I mean obviously I would feel sympathy for anyone in jail, but is this a serious argument? Do you literally need me, to go, step by step, explaining the difference in burdens for a pregnant person and a non pregnant person?

Also, are you sure you aren't just personally putting more emphasis on "mens" struggles/burden around pregnancy versus pregnant womans struggles/burden? Also, is it because you think the law/health professionals think "men" have zero struggles or burdens?

Haha, yeah, I assumed your quote was factual, from the beginning. When a person starts to emphasize on how true or factual something is, using language traditionally meant to convey information that is true, against preconceived notions or assumptions, like 'actually' it can get a tad confusing. No apology necessary though, I appreciate the clarification.

I see differences between the two examples, yes, like most things though, there are differences and there are similarities. The similarities are what I think are contextually important. Also in my scenario, importantly, its not about the woman in hindsight, thinking she shouldn't have dated the man... its about choices in the present, and what choices she can make. If she is unhappy with the situation, she can leave. I mean... if she thinks she can change his mind, then thats an option too, just legally, she has no ability to enforce that he stays. If a guy thinks he can persuade a woman, to agreeing with him, about either keeping or aborting a child, his child, if he has sex with her, then he can take that risk too if he wants... as long as he realizes she may not be persuaded and may have greater legal/medical rights than him. Also the woman's choice can be made before a relationship is started. Also sex doesn't have to be a variable in the scenario at all either.

You acknowledge that the man in the pregnancy scenario, gets a choice, but its nor a shared choice with the woman in scenario 1. Its just a choice. A very important choice that limits his future choices and options. Some choices are unfortunately like that. In the woman's scenario, she could potentially choose to be unhappy for 20 years, and full of regret. Lots of little/big choices involved in that one, presumably, but in hindsight, she could have saved herself a whole lot of trouble based on her first choice. A man in the pregnancy situation, doesn't get so many choices or opportunities and yeah, thats really unfortunate for some men who aren't educated, or informed, but thats just how the current system is set up. As far as the future? The rights and choices of the non pregnant individual are probably going to get less and less, but... the sex education of individuals, and their ability to make better, safer and more informed decisions will rise as well.

Also the scenario? No, its not a heavy burden on woman thats the whole point, if a guy wants to travel overseas to serve his country, she shouldn't force him to stay, it would be unhealthy for both of them. She'd either have to compromise, or move on to another potential partner.

Ahh okay, we are making progress. I agree its inhumane, and so your greater issue is specifically men who don't want a child being legally and financially responsible for a child they do not want? You also don't want the Government to step in and support the mother in lieu of the father? Also no, I think this is important and potentially the crux of all this discussion, I am okay with addressing this primarily if you are?

So correct me if I am wrong, you believe this would have a deterring effect on people abusing well fare and child support systems? Right? Okay, assuming I am right... how would this be different from say education systems that enforce abstinence only programs? Also, lets say the number of welfare and child support 'abusers' do drop... but we still have individuals with children, without additional support from the fathers side, and Government... are they and their children barred from emergency medical services? If a child turns up to school and faints, and needs medical care, who will pay for that? If children start turning up on doorsteps abandoned... who will look after them?

No analogy is intended to be perfect, but you also got some of the details of the analogy incorrect anyway, and if you'd like, feel free to come up with any analogy, where choice is the relevant aspect. I mean, to be clear, I know you acknowledge the mans choice, but you seem hung up on how unfair it is for men, after that choice... to use your own language and phrasing, shouldn't that mean that men should take that choice really seriously?

Peoples understandings, interpretations and competence around what is "fair, just and blind" will differ though. This is why some people have more authority than others, to interpret and enforce as such. Is the system perfect? I think far from it, I am personally critical, of a few processes, I get the sense you are too. Do you consider yourself enough of an expert to motivate change to such processes to reflect your views? Luckily for me, I don't really have to be, patterns in law and society are generally and slowly moving to where I think they should be.

Well if you don't believe I agree, even when I say I agree, then whats the point of conversation? Well fine then, I don't actually believe you are a human. You are actually a robotic lizard person who feeds on human babies, and thats the only reason why you are against abortion. You need those sweet sweet newborn babies to eat. Right? Then you start talking in broad generalizations again, which, honestly, to me, just sounds like making excuses for men over their inability to make better decisions. Rhetoric about woman having more options and control and so those harlots can enjoy promiscuity more! Sluts! Aw shucks, teehee, etc etc right. Your right. Lil Johnny was responsible boy all his life and made all the best decisions, except for one night, when that slut Sue tricked him, and Johnny made one small choice, and now Johnny is put in prison where he is physically abused every day (sexually abused as well... ) and where is Sue? Slutting it up for more boys around the neighborhood, even though she has 12 kids, to 10 different fathers. This is what society does!! Woman eh?

So do you think men should legally be able to inject pregnant woman with chemicals that will kill his sperm, up until fertilization? Do you know much about male contraceptive skin gel? Or is that 'unfair' because you still have to apply that presex? Is your argument, ultimately, really just reduced to envy about lack of post sex contraceptives?

Except I haven't been saying that men should keep it in their pants... that rhetoric has been coming from you. I don't reduce men to what they keep in their pants, unless they are wearing their pants as hats, because its all about agency, autonomy and choices (and education, consent and information to guide those other variables) I know they are phrases, that you didn't invent, but I choose not to use them, because I don't have a low opinion or men, nor do I want to victimize them.

I have no problem telling myself to abstain from sex with woman I think are of a dubious ethical and untrustworthy nature. If somehow that means I must abstain from sex?!?! Since all the woman around me are shady people? Then I guess no sex... or I can move somewhere normal... then do I feel bad about suggesting other men and woman follow similar practices? No, I don't. Also I am not saying that men "deserve" the consequences, why do you do this so much? I mean this isn't a question you are asking me, that I am confusing for rhetoric, you are just straight up assigning views to me, that I do not hold. Why? Consequences and consequences deserved are two separate components/issues. Similarly with woman and no negative consequences? Thats not what I am personally saying.

With how we are discussing, I do have to make such weird flexes, otherwise i run the risk of you doing above with assigning views to myself that I don't actually hold. That being said, no worries, I appreciate the offer of apology, but its unnecessary. The main issue that occurs when we our assumptions about each other are wrong, is that we have to use more energy and time to clarify our stances. i have been guilty of this with you as well, here and there, but I try and limit that. I get the impression you have had similar arguments and discussions with some people who are "pro choice" and or side more with the rights of woman in this situation, but I am not those people. Just like I know your own arguments may have more nuance and reason that many "pro life" peoples.

I think woman should be held responsible for their actions, just from a factual, biological, perspective, pregnant woman, specifically, they naturally have more options and choices that men who impregnate woman, don't. Are you saying that we should remove/ban all post sex contraceptives from existing so that woman must have the same standard of responsibility that men have, as far as consequences? Or are you just annoyed that science hasn't invented a kill switch for sperm that a man can activate within 72 hours?

I can clarify, that bit I said about feeling horny and feeling entitled to sex, isn't just for guys, its for woman too. Its for people in general. Its why I followed up the example with two parents, who could be man and woman, looking for a surrogate. They have to be responsible and aware of unfavorable consequences as well. The risks per scenarios will change based on variables, but yeah.

I don't think its a higher standard, its more of a obvious factual reality. Athletic cups, are primarily created for, and used by men. Some woman wear them, but its predominantly for men, as far as an industry and usage. Is this unfair? Getting in in the groin for a female still hurts.. why does society shun the risks our woman must suffer? I mean, she gets the choice to wear one... but our attitude about such... favors the men, why do we let this continue? Shouldn't this be made fair? Or... is it because mens external genitalia are much, much, more vulnerable than womans, and serious injury there, carries more inherent medical complications, so it just makes sense that athletic cups are primarily designed for and marketed towards men. It more sound like you are having trouble separating the abstract from the practical. Abstract being societal pressures and attitudes and practical being the fact one individual is literally carrying the child, eggs and sperm within it. There is overlap and lots of different issues to address, but we shouldn't ignore practical decisions under the idea/guise of addressing broader societal abstracts.

The other people who aren't the surrogate don't have to be men. Do you think the egg donor gets more rights than the sperm donor when it comes to surrogate parenthood?

Steel man in reference to my own argument, not yours. In the context of acknowledging my satire, in the sense, that I acknowledge you aren't calling woman femoids, so don't take the satire as a legitimate argument - look at my actual serious arguments elsewhere. So just a misunderstanding here. My apologies if it seemed like I was actually implying that you think woman are femoids (or anything like that). My point is, I do think there are legal injustices being perpetrated against men, in practice. I don't think mens issues when it comes to pregnancy, is necessarily legal, rather a problem with education, because I do think there are a lot of men, who aren't make informed and educated decisions when they have sex. Woman too, just unlike men, they do get more choices and options after sex, and men don't (we actually agree there I think) but I view that existing for practical reasons. Not broader abstract societal standards/pressures. You also seem to lean more towards the financial repercussions for men that do not want a child... as opposed to men who want to force a woman to be pregnant, so while i agree that does then loop around to be a legal matter and one that can be improved, and talked about, my only realistic alternative would be for the Government to step in (or better yet, improve sex education to be proactive to the problem, and not reactive) but we can talk about that separately.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for rabumalal
#753 Posted by RabumAlal (4876 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-life people = idiots.

Avatar image for sc
#754 Posted by SC (18106 posts) - - Show Bio

sex is icky

Sex is icky though... first you have to hire an exorcist, then you gotta buy a dozen eggs, and glow in the dark red and green paint. Like liters of the stuff, then you gotta get greased up and put on the ritual paints. Braid all the hair, put on all the jewelry and then kill the goat and hang it upside down... and what if no one shows up? You made enough snacks and refreshments for 20 people, but sometimes people don't RSVP, and then you'll be embarrassed in front of your parents...

Moderator Online
Avatar image for sc
#755 Posted by SC (18106 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-life people = idiots.

Eh, lets try not and overgeneralize people too negatively please. Not good for healthy conversation.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#756 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2736 posts) - - Show Bio
@sc said:
@rabumalal said:

Pro-life people = idiots.

Eh, lets try not and overgeneralize people too negatively please. Not good for healthy conversation.

Not to mention about people who live in glass houses, on these sweeping accusations.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#757 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2736 posts) - - Show Bio

Also, does limited abortion mean pro-choice or pro-life? I want restrictions to the choice to make any late term abortions that can be a live child if taken out immediately (which is anything really after the second trimester, final vital organs are formed and working, the third just really gains mass and strength, and increases survival chances), and maybe a few restrictions on the hows for parts of the second, especially as it gets close to that.

But largely swallow the bullet as the first trim abortions, etc - as a necessary evil.

Which camp this puts me in, I guess depends on who you ask.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#758 Posted by Iron_Tiger (201 posts) - - Show Bio

I actually voted for "no abortion," but that was based on the law trying to be passed that had reasonable details as to why it should be allowed under certain situations: if the mother's health is terribly at risk, if the woman was raped, and/or if the pregnancy was due to incest. Otherwise, it should be illegal.

Avatar image for tourneymaster
#759 Posted by TourneyMaster (1305 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt New York, and 7 other states from what I read, just pass a law that you can give birth to a healthy baby, no issues, already born, and decide screw this kill it?

If true, wow, Pro Life idiots looking better than Pro Choice murders. I mean... damn.

Avatar image for bump1010
#760 Posted by bump1010 (1043 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt New York, and 7 other states from what I read, just pass a law that you can give birth to a healthy baby, no issues, already born, and decide screw this kill it?

If true, wow, Pro Life idiots looking better than Pro Choice murders. I mean... damn.

Do you have a source? That sounds incorrect.

Avatar image for tourneymaster
#761 Edited by TourneyMaster (1305 posts) - - Show Bio

@bump1010:

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/04/8-states-now-allow-killing-babies-up-to-birth-after-new-york-legalized-all-abortions/

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/ob-gyn-rejects-ny-abortion-law-absolutely-no-reason-to-kill-a-baby-in-third-trimester

https://www.politifact.com/vermont/statements/2019/feb/15/christopher-coyne/would-proposed-vermont-law-allow-abortions-right-m/

Seems like killing after its born is not possible, but legal now to kill the baby even days before due date is legal for any reason rather than extreme exceptions like before.

From what I heard on various radio shows on the subject, the worst part is the baby is euthanize if it accidentally survives the abortion. So if the abortion fails, or goes wrong, baby is delivered alive still, the doctors have to kill it. I dont have links to that since it was on my Tampa Bay talk stations.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#762 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2736 posts) - - Show Bio

@tourneymaster:

Third trimester abortions in general make me sick, and even second trimester ones in many cases, especially the methods some of them use. This is from a person who is pro-choice and finds abortions at all (like in first semester fetal stage, etc) - to be a necessary evil (that should be avoided if possible).

Just to give people an understanding on why third trimester is especially wrong: the baby develops all critical life organs in the second trimester, like heart, lungs, etc. A baby by the time the start of the third happens has everything it needs to to live outside the mother in a hospital to grow, it has a chance. Granted, the earlier it is in the third trimester, the lower the chances. What happens in the womb during that period is it really just grows in size and strength, it doesn't get anything that is vital to live, it already has that.

If you really don't want a baby at that point, dear god people, just do a cesarean and try and keep the baby alive, and grow him up to be a fully healthy, functioning adult. And for also dear god: at this point, if the mother went with this decision, she should have voided any parental rights at all to this child. There is no reason to have an abortion at this point, NONE.

The very idea of it to me is completely inexcusable. How 8 states already have it, is sickening.

Avatar image for tourneymaster
#763 Edited by TourneyMaster (1305 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings said:

@tourneymaster:

Third trimester abortions in general make me sick, and even second trimester ones in many cases, especially the methods some of them use. This is from a person who is pro-choice and finds abortions at all (like in first semester fetal stage, etc) - to be a necessary evil (that should be avoided if possible).

Just to give people an understanding on why third trimester is especially wrong: the baby develops all critical life organs in the second trimester, like heart, lungs, etc. A baby by the time the start of the third happens has everything it needs to to live outside the mother in a hospital to grow, it has a chance. Granted, the earlier it is in the third trimester, the lower the chances. What happens in the womb during that period is it really just grows in size and strength, it doesn't get anything that is vital to live, it already has that.

If you really don't want a baby at that point, dear god people, just do a cesarean and try and keep the baby alive, and grow him up to be a fully healthy, functioning adult. And for also dear god: at this point, if the mother went with this decision, she should have voided any parental rights at all to this child. There is no reason to have an abortion at this point, NONE.

The very idea of it to me is completely inexcusable. How 8 states already have it, is sickening.

I think too many people bitch about this silly wall and silly Black Face democrats, and real issues like this where real human life is at stake are swept under the table. Blows my mind how petty both parties concerns are.

Avatar image for echostarlord117
#764 Posted by echostarlord117 (5576 posts) - - Show Bio

It's an awful practice that should be reserved for last resort type scenarios. Wanton abortion spells doom for society at large imo.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#765 Posted by SpareHeadOne (5874 posts) - - Show Bio

@echostarlord117:

I thought you were talking about magical abortion spells for a second there

Avatar image for streak619
#766 Posted by Streak619 (7527 posts) - - Show Bio

It's objectively murder.

Objectively.

Avatar image for yassassin
#767 Posted by Yassassin (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

Evil, pure evil.

Avatar image for zachary_stomps
#768 Posted by Zachary_Stomps (23 posts) - - Show Bio

Just say yes to the prevention by producing more than 20 billion condoms each year.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#769 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2736 posts) - - Show Bio

Just say yes to the prevention by producing more than 20 billion condoms each year.

Lack of availability of condoms is hardly an issue in most of the western nations, or at least the US where I live. It would have a negligible effect.

Avatar image for hittheassasin
#770 Posted by HitTheAssasin (7877 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm leaning pro-life as of now as opposed to pro-choice, from what I've seen, it's practically murder.

Avatar image for worldofruin6
#771 Posted by WorldofRuin6 (2589 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm against abortion after a certain period. Killing nearly formed babies is just wrong. It's pretty much legal murder.

Avatar image for buckwheat
#772 Posted by Buckwheat (2259 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@buttersdaman000 said:

sex is icky

Sex is icky though... first you have to hire an exorcist, then you gotta buy a dozen eggs, and glow in the dark red and green paint. Like liters of the stuff, then you gotta get greased up and put on the ritual paints. Braid all the hair, put on all the jewelry and then kill the goat and hang it upside down... and what if no one shows up? You made enough snacks and refreshments for 20 people, but sometimes people don't RSVP, and then you'll be embarrassed in front of your parents...

Hahaha... Don't you hate it when that happens?

Avatar image for sc
#773 Posted by SC (18106 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator Online
Avatar image for sc
#774 Posted by SC (18106 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt New York, and 7 other states from what I read, just pass a law that you can give birth to a healthy baby, no issues, already born, and decide screw this kill it?

If true, wow, Pro Life idiots looking better than Pro Choice murders. I mean... damn.

Not really... what I mean, is that it would be inaccurate to say that thats what they passed.

Such bills/laws (I am not familiar with the nuances of each bill) but I am with a few of them. Generally though, they delve into certain specific circumstances and situations. A woman can't just randomly decide to have an abortion just cause' just a day before she is due. Its far more complicated than that, also ignoring the issue of actual people actually behaving like that. Certain articles and reactions to such bills, may not necessarily reflect this though, but I am usually skeptical of such articles as they rarely address actual specifics, and often exist to either affirm political preferences or cast suspicion/doubt towards political enemies.

One of the sources/links you posted in another post, did cover some specifics though, and drew some decent conclusions. "Bishop Coyne’s statement is true in a strict legal sense, but only if the law existed in a practice and policy vacuum. Without context, it is seriously misleading in regards to what would be permissible practice in Vermont. The proposed law would not change the legal reality in Vermont in any way. And all evidence indicates that the type of abortions that the bishop fears -- elective procedures in the final stages of pregnancy -- do not occur in Vermont, and would not occur if H.57 passes."

I underlined the bit about context, because its really important to establish it in any discussion.

Moderator Online