Wow, I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who liked this post, this is the most likes I've ever gotten on one post here before. It makes me happy to know that so many feel the same way I do about this medical issue, as in it really shouldn't be a political one, only a medical one.
In Japan yes. Japanese culture is actually pretty far behind our own when it comes to women's rights despite (did I say despite? Maybe I should say just like) what they portray in your typical Japanese anime cartoon. lol I found that out from reading this article actually. http://www.filibustercartoons.com/i...ropes-vs-women-episode-1-damsels-in-distress/
Not necessarily, all that would mean is again: Talking. A man who wants to build a family shouldn't date a woman who doesn't, likewise for the woman who doesn't want a family. Later on, you proclaim talking to be "puritan" and a cardinal sin, well if I can't even do that then what should I do? Do my dreams and ambitions mean absolutely nothing to the female species? Ah, such is "Western" women today. Also, the fact of the matter is that sexual intercourse and pregnancy will always be intertwined. That's why the term "unwanted babies". That term has been just as destructive as abortion. A woman should always think, as a matter of course that having sex means being pregnant. It's only biological reality. We don't know when that 15-20% will occur, but we know it occurs(With exception to natural body defects). And before you ask, I would stand by such a person. There's nothing wrong with adoption. (That and the sperm bank thing is nice if we wanted to go that route) Wouldn't it just be wonderful if our bodies were created to share in the birthing experience? Unfortunately it wasn't, but since we refuted genetic disposition and superiority, we have to refute that for everything, including your precious "political right". Just because men aren't biologically involved in the development of the baby, does not make women superior to either the fetus or the man. Her legally protected status is in fact primarily due to the baby, for without which she's simply another woman. Abortion isn't a political right, it's a foolish concession given by the State that deems you a demi-god due to your pregnancy. But you cannot negate the fact that without men that status would never be yours to begin with.So if you want to claim a demi-godhood status, then it's only right for men to claim equal status. After all, you said you wanted "equality" right? There's no reason men should be treated as human, simply because they're no longer a part of the biological process. I can also make another argument, as you said having intercourse merely a few times isn't often enough to satisfy the conditions of pregnancy. It might take a few months or even a year to get impregnated. What if having continual intercourse is the same as biological development? After all, by that point the man might as well have become one and whole with the woman, hence his contribution was very significant to getting impregnated. If he slacked off for even a week or a month, that baby might not be there. If Abortion is a political right, men have just as much right to that as women do. To deny otherwise is again, "separate but equal", which as in this case and every other is simply not equal. Interesting, because as of this writing I'm still alive and I believe you are too. So that means we were born on this world. It also means our mothers gave us birth. It's not just us, but 7 other billion human beings on the planet. So it would seem that women have elected for pregnancy more than not. This idea of a selective pregnancy process falls flat on its face. Every argument that women have ever made for abortion, has always fallen flat on its face. That's because abortion has no justification, no natural law behind it, no moral basis. It's a conscious decision by our "society" to propel women above men and children due to the "hardship of pregnancy". Also due to the blowback from liberalized sexualism. You just argued above that the more a couple engages in sexual intercourse, the higher the chances are that of a pregnancy. Now you're going to spin around and try to argue that sexual intercourse will not "naturally" bring a baby into the world? And what's with the quotation marks around naturally? Sexual intercourse is no longer a natural human act now? Is that what you're implying? When you can have unprotected sex simply by taking a pill, and going out with multiple guys, I'm sorry but the "women health" items can also be called "anti-moral" items. And at the same time, sanctifying it has also sanctified the worst behaviors in men.(Yet at the same time women want to distance themselves from that natural correlation, go figure -_-) Oh wow, this is epic! You argued that we were progressive, now it's a "return to how we were". Technically you're right, way back at man's infancy. And while marriage is sanctified on some level by a church, the deeper commitment and meaning it(once) had goes beyond religious and spiritual and more to matters of deep intimacy. Also, how we were wasn't necessarily the right thing. As without a stable "pack", the children would grow up in the wrong ways. That's still true today as children without a stable household end up being more likely to become criminals . The family unit was "one of those things" that progressives created that was actually universally accepted and strengthened the human race. It was one of progressivism's few successes. Bravo, and that's the purpose and meaning of a relationship. Do you understand how it works now? Who would waste their time with an ideological opposite? I mean, we can plainly evidence from our conversation just how strained a relationship can be between two anonymous people who don't know each other. I couldn't wait to get to this argument of yours when I first read it, because I came up with the perfect comeback that will at the very least have you withdrawing this silly statement. 1)If she would suffer abuse via communication surrounding changing her opinions on a decision, then everytime a woman does the same, she's abusing the man. Fair is fair right? At least on this, since there's no fetus to discuss right? Now on the whole blackmail thing. Would you say that every couple that gets a divorce is a woman being blackmailed? And isn't your argument basically like this: Stay with me, if not, then it's criminal. Aren't you blackmailing? Actually, I want to use these words: Aren't you a parasite? That's the definition of parasitical behavior to me, to force a man to stay in the relationship when a crucial promise that formed it in the first place can no longer be met. If a relationship with a woman is parasitical by nature(as you've clearly pointed out) then women no longer have any moral superiority regarding the fetus or the man. It's okay for a woman to be parasitical but not for a fetus? Before you argue your parasitical behaviors aren't damaging http://www.brookdalecc.edu/PDFFiles/Bonilla/What%20About%20Men.pdf "Not surprisingly, the handling of these overly muscular figures has resulted in decreased body esteem in young men"(Pg 1). Some of that is true to the extent that various things can be negotiated, hashed out and differences accepted. But if you think I'm going to live in a household with someone my exact polar opposite, you had better think again. I'm not a believer in opposites attract, I believe opposites divorce more than similar people. Having a child is crucial, having a family is crucial. At the very least, I'm not going to break up with a woman for the simplest and most trivial of reasons. If the simple and trivial matter to her, then she should find a guy that also feels the simple and trivial is significant. I bet that it's within her right to question a guy until she finds her "mr.right", right? And you argue that I'm not for equality, talk to the hand. Your position is all for female supremacy.
1 in 4 pregnancies in the United States end in an abortion; therefore your argument that abortion laws need strengthening is fallacious based upon defective induction. It reaches a conclusion from weak premises. Statistics indicate abortions are neither rare, nor diminished by any measurable means, by the current set of laws regarding the legalities of same. Unless you want to change your stance and argue 25% of pregnancies terminated by abortion is, in your opinion, too modest. Perhaps you'd like to see that statistic at a more acceptable level, say 50% of all pregnancies ending in abortion. It would after all, be economically beneficial. Why stop at abortion? Using your deductive reasoning, reasoning from the general to the particular. Are you aware that Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 % of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life? ..it would be economically beneficial to euthanize the elderly in their final year of life rather than waste tax dollars on someone who won't be around much longer anyway. We would save approximately 30% of $510 billion dollars or $153 billion tax dollars. Annually. When we're done cutting costs with the elderly, it will be time to go after the unproductive and leeches of society. The drains of the welfare coffers, otherwise known as entitlements. Wouldn't it be so much better to just round them up and sterilize them? Why go through the hassle of abortion, when the real fix, is a literal...fix. I bet we'd save over another $300 - 400 billion in entitlements, because as we all know, the apple never falls far from the tree. We could finally end generational welfare.
I read the OP twice, and posted my rather scathing indictment reply...however reading the body of the thread. I'm at odds as to what the author of the initial OP intended. So to clear up. Addressing the OP. Precisely, what do you mean "strengthening" the laws on abortion.? This can be interpreted two ways. 1. strengthen the woman's prerogative to get an abortion. 2. weakening the woman's prerogative to get an abortion by allowing the biological "donor" to have input regarding the decision to NOT get an abortion. I responded with an interpretation of the former, but I believe your intent was more the latter. Therefore you're an advocate of toughening up the laws restricting abortion by enabling the biological "father" to have a say in the decision should they want the pregnancy to go full term. Maybe it's just my reading comprehension skills, but I'm still at a loss as to what your true intent is. You've made it clear, you want to steepen abortions role in the culture at large...make the pro-life argument..essentially moot; by an inference it's morally based therefore irrelevant. The only relevant debate, is one of a legal basis....in your opinion anyway. I based my indictment on this premise with that intent in mind. You've made it clear, there are economic benefits to ingraining abortion into the culture at large... I based my "modest proposal" using an inclusionary role that euthanasia and sterilization could also play if the only matter of any relevance is economic benefit. Think Jonathan Swift....I took poetic license to point out the logical conclusion a purely utilitarian approach to abortion would have. There are vast amounts of ways we can achieve economic benefit if indeed the concept of morality is of no consequence. Euthanizing the terminally ill. Sterilizing the terminally entitled. (to name but a few) So understand, It's quite possible I misinterpreted your intent. I ask therefore...a simple question to clarify your premise. Are you for or against increasing the legal barriers for a woman to obtain an abortion?
There is a key difference between "everyone should" and "criminal sanction is they don't". This isn't really about what should happen in a perfect world but how to practically achieve the least worst results possible for each individual situation in the real world. I think the greater complication here is your apparent opinion that women are a "class" of people with a singular opinion on anything, let alone abortion. Women are just people with boobs. There is nothing special about how women in general perceive abortion. There is a major issue here with the gross politicising surrounding the questions abortion adding all sorts of barriers to this kind of discussion but it's not all women nor women alone responsible for that. Trying to turn this in the a gender war is hardly going to improve anything for anyone.
Whoever said it had to be prosecuted criminally? We could do it similarly to how we drug test those receiving welfare benefits. We'd say something like: "If you use the counseling services, the State will pay for the abortion"(This kind of thing leans leftism, but I'm fine with that). Why? Because Abortion becomes something now where you have to plan it out, you have to talk about it and the father gets a real significant say. To me, sanctioning Abortion to make it morally justifiable is not only pro-women but pro-men as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if women don't want "the government" or "men" to interfere with the process, then men should naturally be included. Uh...I'll give you visual proof that you're frankly wrong. [video=youtube;gAy_xrDUFzY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAy_xrDUFzY[/video] It's a very naive political mistake to think of women as "people with boobs" politically. You can have a gender-neutral philosophical view and that's okay and I share the same view outside of politics. But why is it that women go against the GOP? Because of the Liberal brandishing of a 'war on women' and by war on women, we mean explicitly "pro-choice measures". For women, abortion is a holy grail issue. Planned Parenthood made it that way, pro-"feminist" groups made it that way. My proposals right here are completely fair and in fact, they are pro-women, it's a proper resolution to the Abortion issue in a way that neatly resolves all of their problems. Yet the women lashed out, why? Because the immorality of abortion isn't so much immoral to them, and because the abortion issue isn't a matter of one of equality, it's one of supremacy. Otherwise, men lawfully having the same rights wouldn't be a cause for "concern", in fact it's enshrined in our constitution as such. As an example, you can ask the women here: "What are Women issues?" If not Abortion, they'll point to the artificial wage differences that scientifically has been proven to be a matter of female social decisions, rather than some kind of prejudice in the work place. How about men dropping off as fathers? That should be a concern right? Well, it's because of the bias'd family courts to begin with. If women were politically vested in that issue, they would actually have to give up political power. If you want a TLDR version: Women are politically naive, due to the power of gender politics. Throughout history(despite how they want to cry about historic inefficiencies in the market) women have always been genetically favored opposed to men. Because they are politically naive, they have no idea how to participate in politics. They think politics is the same thing as a kitchen, that women can have "superior" political rights to men. This is why building a gender-neutral society with feminist ideology is impossible. To say that we're not fighting a class warfare is also deluded. Women want the cake of being a politically-protected class while ruling over the "inferior" class of men. Unfortunately for them, men still make up a significant portion of the general population and even if men as a whole are naive they'll understand the sexual politics and the loss of political power in the court rooms, for the children, for even the right to discuss whether or not the child will be born. In fact, it's to such an extreme that a "woman" and "women" might as well be two different entities(politically). Wherein a woman, provided that the communication between a man and a woman is sincere can be a trustworthy love and sexual partner, women as a political group act completely different(IE: Spoiled, naive and a bit arrogant about their social status). Women in politics is like giving a baby a remote control, who changes the channel without realizing what it's doing The gender war started in the mid-60's/70's and Feminists were the ones who fired the first shots. They maligned loyal husbands with the wife-beaters and emotionally forced them to comply. It's such a true tactic today that Fugazi basically used it a few posts above to try to emotionally blackmail me saying that it was wrong for me to selectively choose a woman, while as a woman she's free to selectively choose a man. But because I'm aware of Sexual Politics, I turned the tables and said in effect that if it's blackmail, it's only blackmail on a woman's part. The reason the GOP is losing, is because it's unaware of Sexual Politics. Just like men were unaware of Sexual Politics in the 60's.
If one looks at it from the natural as in the higher social mammals (elephants, chimps, etc.), it is std practice for the dominate male to impregnate, and the cows to join together in raising the offspring....as in the burden of raising the calves et al to maturity was the responsibility of the cow. Often the males would kill offspring to bring the females back into heat. So the whole of the burden was on the female of the species. I'm basically Pro-Life with tradition ruling monogamous marriage and the responsibility of the father to provide for the offspring (and mother!). And so, abortion of offspring would be counter & unnatural for the purpose of propagation of a species.... And so we humans are a species who are remote from our roots and living unnatural lives in a 'modern' world...
Caveat 1 - I skimmed the above because life is too short to read THAT much waffle (please learn what the word précis means and apply it!) But the main thing I did deduce was that the author has little or no knowledge of the real facts surrounding abortions and the motivations of women seeking them http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Well the reference to bovines indicates the origin of this thinking - pure and simple BULL(*)(*)(*)(*)!! Animals throughout the world will resorb foetuses when the natural resources are not enough to sustain growth There is even evidence of some animals seeking out and eating abortifacients in adverse conditions
It's obvious that humans are not that more developed than the higher mammals, and that we have most physical things in common with: sex, birthing, social structure, etc. It's just that some of 'our' mammals are 'wordier' than those with natural instincts and common sense. Thx for the demo.....
And so Abortion is our way to "resorb" those animals? I personally don't uphold the view that we're animals but that we're human beings. We've been able to sustain a growth up to 7 billion humans with no problem. And in fact http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/business/uns-forecast-of-population-growth-may-be-too-high.html?_r=0 We're pretty stabilized. This argument's been had at least since the late 20th century, with John Holdren predicting "doomsday", well it came and past with absolutely no problems. So please excuse me if I ignore this non-factor, overpopulation is merely an accepted conspiracy theory. [video=youtube;vZVOU5bfHrM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM[/video]
Of course you would be pleased, what you ask is for people with a very heartfelt view to sit down, shut up, and let you do whatever you want to do. That is never going to happen, and there will never be a workable resolution to the issue until people - including you - recognize there is a problem with abortion itself. As long as you think the problem is the people who oppose abortion, and the solution is to silence them, then you are in for a long troubled ride. Then Houston abortion doctor Douglas Karpen, who aborted babies in their third trimester by birthing them (partially and fully) and as they struggled he literally twisted their necks until the spine snapped, did nothing wrong? Karpen even told jokes to the apalled nurses while twisting. Karpen also dismembered near full term living babies who were accidentally fully birthed. There is video of Karpen taken by the nurses, and of the nurses testifying, its on the internet but it is very disturbing - watch it but be warned. And the infamous Kermit Gosnell, who only cut late term babies necks with scissors, he did nothing wrong? The earliest born baby to survive was born at 21 weeks - at 21 weeks its clearly a human being. The medical community considers 24 weeks as viable, and there is no such thing as "therapeutic abortion" at 24 weeks or later. Both Karpen and Gosnell killed babies after they reached 21 weeks, but because (theoretically) these babies still had some part of their body still inside their mother, they have no rights and their death is called "abortion". An inch is the difference between "abortion" and "murder". Not viability, not the health of the baby or mother, not the degree of medical care needed, not whether the baby could be adopted, but a matter of an inch is what confers human status on a baby. What would you think if there was a box, and if you placed your hand in it or someone forced your hand into the box, you lose all your rights and status as a human, and could be butchered alive? Thats analogous to abortion. And you don't think there is a problem requiring some regulation and law - much less a severe moral question which needs addressing?
Mate I do not "do" you tube - I view it as having substantially less truth than a tobacco advert Anyone who relies on the opinions expressed on you tube is only seeking validation of a world view and not facts As for resorption of foetuses - why are we different from other animals? If it is a "natural" event occurring throughout nature (and even in man - look it up) then why is abortion "evil"? Are you aware that up to 70% of fertilised eggs do NOT become a viable human? - - - Updated - - - Glad you brought up Gosnell - best reason around to keep abortion legal
Legal and regulated. No different than alcohol and cigarettes. And my proposals here would do that in the interest of fairness, morality and it would even strengthen a woman's political position.
So, how do you propose to "regulate" abortion - and please, in the interests of living, keep your answer to 50 words or less
Go back to the very first page, I already pronounced my proposals(And in the 3rd page I clarified even further) TLDR: Giving men the right of political discussion is not only fair, but would strengthen the moral basis for abortion considerably. It would then not be a "political right" for women but an actual family planning tool. By propping it up with economic benefits and considerations(this is something separate that even women support), we would lower abortion all the more so. Abortion's main opposition and the reason it has to be enforced by government law(irony, since the women foolishly scream "stay out of our uterus!" See what I mean by political awareness, or lackthereof?) is it because it lacks a moral, righteous and fair value. My proposals simply bring the Fairness Doctrine into the equation with abortion.
Actually apart from having men have a say I cannot see how you propose this to work in reality. Men already have a say when they are in a relationship (and are you aware that 45% of abortions are women in a stable relationship who already have at least one child)? How will having male input change the pregnancies resulting from casual sex? How will discussing the issue prevent men from lying through their teeth (Don't worry honey I have had a vasectomy) How will men even KNOW there is a pregnancy if the woman opts for an early "medical" abortion using RU486?
Heartfelt? More like hateful and ignorant views. The only problem with abortion is the one I am about to outline below, and YES it most absolutely IS pro-lifers and their god-awful legislation over women's medical rights. Who said fetuses aren't human beings? Yes, there is. Have you ever heard of a stillborn fetus or heard of fetal incompatibility with life? No this is analogous to FORCED pregnancy and FORCED childbirth. Medical regulations are the norm for most medical procedures. What I have a problem with is intentionally legislating over women's rights so that they cannot have abortions SOONER than the second and third trimester of pregnancy. What I am SICK to DEATH of seeing is pro-life legislation purposely meant to make it almost impossible for women to have a legal abortion and then she is forced to go to some sick freak like Karpel or Gosnell. Clearly you're not seeing this though. This is what anti-choice legislation causes. It causes the very thing you are horrified by. Gee what a shock. How come I rarely ever see pro-lifers flipping out about 1st trimester abortions here? It's always, "OMG LOOK AT WHAT SOME PSYCHO DID TO A THIRD TRIMESTER BABY OMG, OMG, OMG. But I am going to keep on supporting legislation that causes this insanity to happen and then pretend like it wasn't the restrictive laws on abortion that causes this! Baaaawwwww!!!" Seriously, you'd have to be a complete MORON to not see this. Restrictive laws on abortion force women to have their abortions later and later and LATER in pregnancy, and then you're all freaked out and surprised when they go to a messed up so-called clinic that performs elective third trimester abortions? Jesus H-(*)(*)(*)(*)ing Christ...
That's quite a hefty assumption to make(that all women in a relationship confer to their spouse.) Especially given your point below. Simple, because now instead of thinking of a baby as just a 'thing', sexual intercourse will regain it's value and the couple will actually have to ask questions about how to proceed with the relationship. What we think is "planned parenthood" today should actually more be called "abandoned parenthood". Indeed, even the unplanned pregnancies end up going to these "parents" who end up abusing their children. Some refer to economics as the reason, and that's a partial reason but not the primary reason. The primary reason is the very notion of an "unwanted child", the very notion of "casual sex". Just as we've liberalized sexualism, we've also liberalized parenthood. And this "movement" owns all of it. It's almost irreversible at this point and that's sad. But I've proposed a 50/50 solution that would hopefully move in the direction of restoring that sense of family orientation. A: A woman shouldn't be expecting a man to have a vasectomy. B: Very few men actually have a vasectomy. C: A vasectomy is impossible to "fake". Your tubes are tied, animal style. You shoot blanks, etc. This is like virtually a non-issue. A non-sequitor you thought of that "matches the situation". There we go, something much more serious. Simple, by making it so that drugs such as RU486 can only be had via prescription. I would overturn the ruling(the disgusting ruling) that's going to basically drug up young pre-teen girls to this crap and make it so that the family counseling comes first and foremost. We have to start taking education(and moral values) much more seriously. Abortion is NOT a solution to the problem of "unwanted pregnancies". Making pregnancies "wanted" is the real, viable human solution. I won't settle for the declining of this country any longer because the vast majority of adults(of all ages) have become incredibly lazy!(Intellectually and otherwise lazy)
A. If a man says he had a vasectomy, a woman should be able to rely on that. B. Not a small number: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20850832 Using National Survey of Family Growth data an estimated 175,000 to 354,000 vasectomies were done yearly from 1998 to 2002 . C. A vasectomy is impossible to detect. Do you really believe that passing a law requiring a prescription will make drugs impossible to get? BTW, RU-486 can only be had by prescription. You're thinking of emergency contraception which has recently been made over-the-counter. So you think you not only have a right to control women's bodies by passing compulsory birth laws, but you have a right to mess with people minds as well? It's a little more difficult to MAKE a woman want an unwanted pregnancy. It's only your opinion that this country is declining, and blaming any decline or abortion is absurd, especially since abortion has existed for millennia.
Are you serious? For all the claims that men don't know crap about female health, it looks like females know just as little about men health. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...husbands-refuse-make-ultimate-commitment.html http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-vasectomy-expert.html Whereas you can have your precious abortions on an occasional basis, this is a lifechanging and gamebreaking decision for us. One I'd rather not make. Besides, there's a natural form of a vasectomy. http://www.parents.com/blogs/everyt...regnancy/freezing-sperm-male-fertility-trend/ It's called old age.
You are edging closer and closer to my ignore list - simply because ignorance of the psychology of sex this deep is almost useless to debate There is only ONE and only ONE intervention that has been proven time and again to reduce the incidence of abortion Education on contraception coupled with free availability of contraception
