|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Abortion is not a crime. It is fully legal (thank virtue) in all 50 states.
2) It's not an "unborn baby," it's a fetus.
3) It's not violence or a victim, it's a medical procedure.
4) This lump of tissue you are so upset about has no constitutional rights, having been neither born nor naturalized a citizen.
5) Men's rights would be far better served working toward legalizing C4M to equalize the sexes than criminalizing abortion.
[dons flame suit--sorry guys, but this one chapped my butt]
David S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[dons flame suit--sorry guys, but this one chapped my butt]
It's hard to take a stand on this and not get attacked. I will go on record, though, as saying that I agree with some of what you say.
I have a lot of trouble, however, with late-term abortions. And, as far as I'm concerned, partial-birth abortions are brutal torture-murder of perfectly innocent infants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can certainly respect that--just as there must be time limits for exercising C4M to not leave the woman "in a lurch."
And although I fully stand by my points, I apologize for my apparent attitude. I had just come from browsing feminst (Ms) forums to here and was in a pissy mood. Ya'll didn't deserve it.
David S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 08, @05:09PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Late-term and partial birth abortions are performed almost always because of health risks to the mother. Women have every RIGHT to save their own life and health.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 07, @11:17PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"Abortion is not a crime. It is fully legal..."
Slavery was legal and no less wrong.
"It's not an "unborn baby," it's a fetus."
"Fetus" is Latin for baby. Try again.
The "lump of tissue" is a human life.
"It's not violence or a victim, it's a medical procedure."
You can't be talking about partial birth abortion.
"Men's rights would be far better served working toward legalizing C4M..."
Perhaps we could start by allowing men to adopt children they sired, that women chose to abort.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slavery was legal and no less wrong.
True, but thats not a very good argument as you could use that for anything. Sure its legal to own a house, but then slavery was once legal too!
"Fetus" is Latin for baby. Try again.
And the fact that the word comes from a long dead language proves what? A young fetus isn't yet a human being, its just a blob of cells.
You can't be talking about partial birth abortion.
The most overhyped procedure, ever. Its extremely rare but pro-lifers make it sound like most abortions are partial-birth. I have no problem banning them, except when the mother's health is at risk. But lifers usually omit that part when ranting about the subject.
Perhaps we could start by allowing men to adopt children they sired, that women chose to abort.
Very, very true. Right now women have all the rights while men only have responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't be talking about partial birth abortion.
The most overhyped procedure, ever.
I don't think it's overhyping to object to the brutal torture-murders of dozens of infants by doctors and mothers every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objecting is fine. I'm saying the amount of blood pressure medication and hyperventalation spent over this issue is greatly out of proportion to the number of women who actually go through with this procedure for no other reason than "I guess I don't want the baby anymore". Just like a c-section, this is a fairly serious operation and not be done lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slavery was legal and no less wrong.
True, but thats not a very good argument as you could use that for anything. Sure its legal to own a house, but then slavery was once legal too!
We can wait to see if Ray responds to this, but I doubt he was claiming that being legal makes something wrong (because slavery was once legal). It seems to me that he was pointing out the fact that being legal doesn't make something right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that he was pointing out the fact that being legal doesn't make something right.
I *did* manage to that Tom. :P Just doing some counter-nitpicking to Ray's nitpicking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fetus" is Latin for baby. Try again.
And the fact that the word comes from a long dead language proves what? A young fetus isn't yet a human being, its just a blob of cells.
Latin is used within the English language to a large degree. It is also taught in a variety of institutions. To state that this fine language is dead is not only false, but ignorant.
Also, it is only your opinion that it's just a blob of cells. As an artist, I know that a canvass that is only 'partially' painted is a work of art nonetheless.
I won't argue the rest of your points as what I've written here is more than enough to discredit the rest of your post.
Learn to discourse in an effective manner, or don't discourse at all.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latin is used within the English language to a large degree. It is also taught in a variety of institutions. To state that this fine language is dead is not only false, but ignorant.
Well, I decided to do something about that ignorance and picked up a book. I made a statling discovery, maybe you haven't heard the news yet: all the Romans are dead! The last part of the Roman empire was invaded by the Turks centuries ago, and the rest of the empire fell almost a thousand years before that! I guess that might be why some people call latin and anchient egyptian dead languages, because all of its people are, well, dead. But I guess you can go to a university and learn how to read hieroglyphs, so anchient egypt must not be dead either.
I won't argue the rest of your points as what I've written here is more than enough to discredit the rest of your post.
Well, if engaging in intellectual snobbery, followed by ad hominems and a summary declaration of victory amounts to discreditation, then I guess I am discredited! Most other people would probably say what you wrote was somthing called "flamebait", but they also must be "ignorant".
Learn to discourse in an effective manner, or don't discourse at all.
sniff sniff...ah ah acho!
*pot*
sniffle...ah ah
*kettle*
acho!
*black*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for showing that you will indeed take the bait from the flame.
Ad hominem...hmmm...Latin? Dude, total intellectual faux pas.
So, why didn't you argue the most important part of my post - Also, it is only your opinion that it's just a blob of cells. As an artist, I know that a canvass that is only 'partially' painted is a work of art nonetheless. ? Are you afraid of consciencebait?
I was wondering: Are you grateful to be alive? If so, are you really more than a blob of cells now? If you answer yes, would you please enlighten us on how and why you ‘earned’ the right to life?
Bet you’re rationalizing - right now, as you stare into this monitor - why you deserve to be here, and all of those aborted children do not.
Bet you.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Slavery was legal and no less wrong."
Denying women self-determination over their own reproduction is slavery. And the State must not have such authority, Ray.
"'Fetus'" is Latin for baby. Try again."
In the modern english in which he wrote, 'fetus' does not mean 'baby'.
"The 'lump of tissue' is a human life."
So is the self-determining Citizen that contains it, and the State must not be granted the authority to force her to bear.
"You can't be talking about partial birth abortion."
And by how I read his later comments, no, he wasn't.
"Perhaps we could start by allowing men to adopt children they sired, that women chose to abort."
And the problem with that, again, is that the State must not be granted the authority to force women to bear in the first place.
It always comes back to that one defining element in the end. There will be no babies for men to adopt that would have been aborted unless the State is granted the improper power to violate female Citizens' right to self-determination.
And the justification that such improper power would be granted 'for the children' does not make it right.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Slavery was legal and no less wrong." Denying women self-determination over their own reproduction is slavery. And the State must not have such authority, Ray. "'Fetus'" is Latin for baby. Try again." In the modern english in which he wrote, 'fetus' does not mean 'baby'. "The 'lump of tissue' is a human life." So is the self-determining Citizen that contains it, and the State must not be granted the authority to force her to bear. "You can't be talking about partial birth abortion." And by how I read his later comments, no, he wasn't. "Perhaps we could start by allowing men to adopt children they sired, that women chose to abort." And the problem with that, again, is that the State must not be granted the authority to force women to bear in the first place. It always comes back to that one defining element in the end. There will be no babies for men to adopt that would have been aborted unless the State is granted the improper power to violate female Citizens' right to self-determination. And the justification that such improper power would be granted 'for the children' does not make it right. Ack! Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
First, the slkavery analogy Ray makes is good and proper. Justifying something as legal ergo right was the assertation made first, and he effectively refuted it.
And the rest of this is this is good, BUT...
If the woman is the sole determiner of whether or not a pregancy comes to term; then it is fair, right, and just to deem that they bear the sole responsibility, without help from the father and without aid from the state.
The minute the state starts to become liable for the upkeep of the mother, and/or the upkeep of the baby, the state gets a say. The state gets to stick their nose in her life.
The minute she wants a man to support her, then she must negotiate with that man on his terms, vis-a-vis his rights as a father, or she gets diddley. He gets to stick HIS nose in her life, because he is footing part of her bill.
OR - she (and this is a collective she) must surrender some of her rights to get a presumption of such aid to her from either the state or the father.
Can't have it two ways. Sole Choice = Sole responsibility
Fetus is not a person = Fetus cannot have any rights, including that to two parents.
Fetus is Fatherless = Mama's fault. Stop making babies with such men as won't be a part of the baby's life.
And as a side note, to really get things going , if a fetus *IS* a person, it follows that abortion is muder, the abortion indistry is a holocaust of Third Reich Proportions, and clinic bombers are absolutely right - so much so to the point that those who oppose abortion and do not bomb clinics and murder abortionists are moral cowards. Think about that one for a while.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denying women self-determination over their own reproduction is slavery.
Does this mean that laws to ban cloning are equal to slavery?
If it's legal for a woman to destroy life by having a hole drilled in the skull of her unborn child (or mass of tissue) and having the brains sucked out, why isn't it legal when that same woman wants to create life via human cloning (I'm looking ahead 5 years)?
I'm fascinated why those who speak out about "reproductive freedom" don't speak out when it comes to laws aimed at banning cloning. The reason is clear. It has nothing to do with "rights" or "reproductive freedom". Both men and women can be cloned so we will ban it due to morality and ethics. On the other hand, abortion is specific to women so it's legal. Like all of our laws, it's all about women. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be illegal.
I agree, Shawn, but I would modify this slightly to say, "If only men could get pregnant, abortion would be illegal."
It would also, probably, be punishable by death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 08, @11:25PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn,
Well said.
I couldn't agree more with you. If men indeed were the child bearing sex there would indeed be no abortion.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Denying women self-determination over their own reproduction is slavery."
No, forcing someone to pick cotton for twelve hours every day without pay for just about their entire life is slavery. Being pregnant is a few months of inconvenience for a woman resulting from her own willfull actions, (most of the time anyway), after that she can always adopt. It's extremely dishonest to compare it to slavery.
Denying a woman the ability to define whether another living organism is human or not and allowing her to kill that organism based on her *opinion* is enforcing responsibility. In spite of the fact that the organism in question is attached to her body, which was a predictable result of her own chosen actions.
"And the State must not have such authority, Ray."
To defend what very well could be innocent people from being killed? That is one of the powers a state must have in order to effectively be a state.
We do not know when a fertilized egg gains the mysterious quality which makes it human. Some poorly defended opinions have been proposed on this, (ie at birth, when its heart starts beating, when its brain structure is developed, etc.) and repeated dogmatically without a shred of evidence by many people. This is not something we can gloss over. The loss of life is the only thing which we know a person cannot recover from. Under no circumstances save war and cases which warrant the death penalty should we allow a person to legally take the life of another, no matter how inconvenient that other person's existance makes their own.
"the State must not be granted the authority to force women to bear"
Why not? Their own actions with known risks got themselves pregnant, (in almost all cases anyway), they should be held accountable for the consequences. I don't care how inconvenient that possible baby's life is to them, they shouldn't get to kill it. Life is too sacred. A baby's life a woman's choice? Hell no! If you're really that concerned with saving women from the drudgery of responsibility fot their chosen sexual actions then you should encourage more funding towards artificial wombs, so that the fetus can eventually be removed without killing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're really that concerned with saving women from the drudgery of responsibility fot their chosen sexual actions then you should encourage more funding towards artificial wombs, so that the fetus can eventually be removed without killing it.
Artificial wombs are the solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Talk with a woman, who claims that an embryo is a non-living growth of a bunch of cells, and who has just had an abortion. See if she feels the same as she does after getting her hair cut or her nails manicured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men's rights would be far better served working toward legalizing C4M to equalize the sexes than criminalizing abortion.
To the extent that men consider fetuses to be their living children, abortion is definitely a matter to be considered by the men's movement.
Personally, I think that abortion is not a true/false, one/zero, on/off matter. There is a continuous development of the embryo/fetus. Immediately after fertilization, it's a non-sentient life. Nothing more, aside from potential, than a bacterium. Once it is viable outside of the womb, however, it has rights, whether of not those rights are supported by law. (As we all know, rights are often not supported by law. In fact, rights are often actively denied by law.)
And partial-birth abortion is consummate evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" (As we all know, rights are often not supported by law. In fact, rights are often actively denied by law.)"
The constitution is just a piece of paper. There is a superior law.
Im more pissed off about the demonization of men in the papers over this 'worst place for a woman' bullshit mentality. Its just feminist speak for 'don't have babies'.
Feminists hate babies as it slows up their march.
Women are naturally mothers why deny this?
As for the anti-abortion principle, I felt obligated to post it even though its been argued ad nauseum.
From my experience of abortion. I feel sick to my stomach everytime I think about it. When my girlfriend got pregnant that was the choice. I am not over it.
There is an electrical charge at fertilization, my beliefs are that is the insertion of soul and identity.
Whatever your choice, think hard about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 07, @11:26PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"There is an electrical charge at fertilization, my beliefs are that is the insertion of soul and identity."
This statement is immensely profound. I appreciate what you are saying.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now everyone's stated their point. Let's put an end to what can only turn into a pointless debate between people who will never change their minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 08, @09:53PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
This certainly has been one of the more divisive issues that has been discussed here. With so many issues that we are in agreement on, it appears counter productive to try to reach a consensus on this issue, that so many of us feel so strongly in disagreement about.
I respect everyone' right to their opinion, even if it disagrees with my own, and hope that we are all still willing to join together on the mountain of other issues that we agree on.
If we can work productively together, where we are in agreement on a number issues, where men's lives are being adversely affected, we not only benefit from resolving those issues, we build an effective framework for discussion and problem solving that may be useful on more complex issues such as this one.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I respect everyone' right to their opinion, even if it disagrees with my own, and hope that we are all still willing to join together on the mountain of other issues that we agree on.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like discussing stuff as long as it doesn't end up with people arguing the same positions back and forth without saying anything new.
Oh, and don't you have an account or something. Why no sign in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a continuous development of the embryo/fetus. Immediately after fertilization, it's a non-sentient life. Nothing more, aside from potential, than a bacterium.
It's not that I want to argue this point ad infinitum ( Latin; the living, breathing language), but this is more an opinion than fact. We do not yet understand how and when consciousness forms, and to what extent small, living things possess something more than just the ability to split and multiply. Therefore, I’ve chosen to consider the moment of conception the beginning of life, and all that encompasses.
I am, however, a meat eater. So, go figure my stance on this subject. Oh, and I do swat mosquitoes and flies every chance I get.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latin; the living, breathing language
You just through that in for my benifit, didn't you? Irregardless, they're still dead. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 11, @12:02AM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Uh, speaking of dead language, irregardless is poor English (kind of a blend of irrespective and regardless). "...regardless their still dead is more correct." A lot of people make this mistake so common useage tends to accept this error, kind of like fetus has a different meaning than the true one. Sorry to nit pick, but I didn't buy your arguement discounting the etymological origin of fetus either.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You weren't supposed to fall for that one, Mitch was supposed to get it.
*pouts*
Anyway, whu the AU ruetine? Why not sign in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me how these so-called "pro-choicers" will wring their hands with worry and gnash their teeth at the thought of "violence against women and their unborn children".
Excuse me, haven't you (the pro-choicer) been telling us all along that it's not a baby? Then at best it's "violence against women and a blob of meat", not an "unborn child".
Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too. It's a baby when they want it to be a baby, it's a tissue mass when they want it to be a tissue mass. What they conveniently ignore is the Law of Identity. Either it's a baby or it's not. A is A. A cannot be non-A.
Reminds me of an episode of Donahue which had a woman as a guest who, early in the show, made it known she was pro-choice. Later in the show she made the statement that she had once lost a baby due to miscarriage. A minister in the audience stood up and told her "No, you didn't lose your baby. You lost a blob of meat."
She was rather shocked, and you could hear audible gasps in the audience.
Make up your minds, pro-choicers. You cannot escape the Law of Identity no matter how hard you try. It's either a baby, or it's just a blob of meat. It cannot be both simultaneously.
Existence exists. A is A.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMEN brother.
Either it's a baby, or it's a blob of cells. Pick one. Stick with it. Be fucking consistant.
If it's a baby, then a man as a father has a say, has an opinion, and counts as more than being merely advisory. Ergo, if he's willing to raise it, bear it, and walk away, lady.
If it's a blob of cells, he can choose to give himself the "daddy pink slip" and walk away, exercising his choice, as she then can exerxise hers to continue to have a fatherless child on her own, or abort it.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Baby or blob. Pick one. Stick with it.
Choice or responsibility. Pick one - and apply it across the board to everyone.
(And I know that since this will require women to accept the responsibility for the choices they make, or go into a real partnership with a man where they have to give up things in a valid negotiation, we can count on this being labeled anti-woman.)
And you know - if it's a blob, get over your "Post abortion trauma" and grow the fuck up, you whiney bitches. I don't go into emotional shock over the boil on my ass I had lanced last month, and that was a blob too. Dumb sluts.
Yep, Gonzo's in one of his moods again.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its not as simple as one or the other, but you're right in that its totally up to the woman and the man has no legal choice but to go along with the decision. Abort, adoption, child support, visitation, its all up to the woman, leaving guys sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. Where's our choice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not trying to be argumentative, but it most certainly IS as simple as "one or the other". It's either a baby or it's not. Simple and easy.
The Law of Identity isn't that difficult. Everything has its own nature, and cannot simultaneously exist as something else. In other words, there are no contradictions in nature. A dog cannot be a cat, a snake cannot be a stop sign, a car cannot be a cup of water, a feminist cannot be honest, etc.... :o)
Something may BECOME something else, but that is through a process of change. (i.e. a caterpillar into a butterfly, for example.) But even in that instance, a caterpillar cannot simultaneously exist both as a caterpillar and a butterfly. It must go through a process of change. (A feminist may become honest, but in doing so, (s)he will no longer be a feminist.) :o)
If an unborn baby indeed IS a baby, then there is no excuse in killing it. None whatsoever. If, however, it's not a baby, then why the hell should anybody get their panties in a wadd if it gets destroyed? Like the minister told the woman on the Donahue show "You didn't lose a baby, you lost a blob of meat. Get over it."
The Law of Identity is something that sometimes makes people stumble because of its profound simplicity. It's the foundation of all of existence.
A is A. A cannot be non-A.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, slow down before you go off the existential deep end. :) Why you keep saying "its human" when you keep talking about change is puzzeling. A pupae is not a catipillar which is not a butterfly. Just like a young fetus is a fetus and not a human being.
Basically the core issue is when you think a fetus is a human being worthy of protection. On one extreme, you have a very few hard core pro-choicers who say that a woman should be able to abort for any reason even if the baby is due in a few days. On the other extreme, you have people who belive that once an egg is fertilized, its a human being.
Both camps are simply nuts. The answer is somewhere in between in those 9 months, and I doubt anyone will be able to say for sure, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scud, I must really like you or something, because I just want to argue with you!
Both camps are simply nuts. The answer is somewhere in between in those 9 months, and I doubt anyone will be able to say for sure, ever.
Since you readily agree that we do not yet possess the ability to 'know' when a human being is just that, then I would respectfully request that you refrain from calling anyone 'nuts' until you actually know the answer.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scud, I must really like you or something, because I just want to argue with you!
Heh. Paraphrased from Doonsbury:
"Were you on the debate team in college?"
"No, I just liked to argue a lot."
I would respectfully request that you refrain from calling anyone 'nuts' until you actually know the answer
I just answered a similar question to nipnap, so I'll refer you to the "parent" button below this post to check it out as I'm not going to say it again. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And if nobody can say for sure, ever (your words, not mine), then logic would dictate that if we are to err, then we should err on the side of caution.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the first couple weeks, there's just an embryo. A blob of cells. No brain, no lungs, no blood vessles. Just cells. To say that this organism that consists of a few hundred cells is a human being like you or me, is nuts.
On the flip side, during the last couple weeks a baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. You could induce labor or preform a c-section and you'd have a living, breathing, screaming human being in your hands. To say that a baby that's a couple weeks away from being born is not a human being because it hasn't been born yet, is also nuts.
Then there's the big grey area in the middle. Is a fetus a human when its heart starts beating? When it has brain activity? When it has some motor control (starts kicking)? When it can live outside the womb without medical asistance? With? That's what I meant when I say "no one will ever be able to say for sure". But most of that stuff happens in the second and third trimesters, not the first.
Basically, this is what I think: any woman should be able to have an abortion during the first trimester, for any reason. Second trimester: only if its discovered that the fetus has a genetic defect, or if the mother's health will be adversely affected. Third trimester: only if the baby has severe deformities or the birth is likely to seriously injure the mother.
And to have some C4M, I think they should have to be notified if the women gets pregnant, should be able to divulge responsibility of the child during the first trimester and be able to veto an abortion during the second, again unless the mothers health is severly affected.
I think the above is a reasonable compromise, but neither there can be no compromising with the firebrands of either camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As always, it's all about perspective.
Damn your eyes, Heisenberg, I am certain!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And you know - if it's a blob, get over your "Post abortion trauma"
This is why I wrote:
Talk with a woman, who claims that an embryo is a non-living growth of a bunch of cells, and who has just had an abortion. See if she feels the same as she does after getting her hair cut or her nails manicured.
They, the women who have abortions, don't believe it's just a bunch of cells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They, the women who have abortions, don't believe it's just a bunch of cells.
And to be succinct, that's their problem.
I used to be very much passionately in both the anti-abortion and pro-abortion camps (And I'm getting rid of the bulllshit PC "Pro-Choice" "Pro-Life" "Anti-Choice" "Anti-Life" politically correct semantic masturbation. It's about abortion. You're for or against it. Deal with it.). And anymore, I don't give a rat's ass.
I've heard more damn women talking about abortion like it's a pheminist sacrament or something, and preach about how it's not up to men, it's our bodies, our choice.
Fine and fuckin' dandy, ladies. And it means it's you're problem. Resolve it. Let us know your decision.
Until then, I won't work except against making a brother man bear responsibility for female choice. And if you've made a choice - LIVE WITH IT. Had the baby, then deal. Had an abortion, stop whining and wearing black on the anniversary. Fuck off. It's your problem, get some therapy, if you must, on your dime, but cut the fuckin' drama for pity's sake. It's pathetic. It was, after all, just a blob of cells. A parasitical growth. And as I have said before, it renders motherhood no more significant and sacred than a good, healthy, bowel movement. It's a function of biology. Brain dead women in comas can get pregnant and have babies. Big Fat Hairy Deal. Grow up. Get over it. Get over yourself.
Have an abortion. Use it for birth control. Have your damn cervix forcibly stretched so many times you can never bear a child. Do it on purpose so you can identify with your "Sisters." Have coat-hanger parties for all I care, and raffle off shop vacs too.
LEAVE ME AND MY BROTHERS OUT OF IT.
Be consistant. This whole "mystical bond" and "sacred Motherhood" crap the other side spouts - well, if it's so damn sacred, why aren't you out killing the infidel and apostate women who are killing their babies? Do you believe it's killing? It is?!?!?!?! Then why aren't you STOPPING it? Why are you allowing murder to occur? I'd certainly step in to stop a murder if I was witnessing it, and as a male I'm supposed to be a moral throwback?
Where's all that courage of your convictions, ladies? Or is it just talking the talk but not walking the walk?
And don't expect me to do it, because I don't give a fuck. Abortion is legal. That's a fact. It's none of men's business. It's a fact de jure. Ergo, it's not our problem. Police yourselves. I'm staying out of it - just like your "sisters" asked. Have loads of fun. Please have the survivors let us know what has been decided. That is, if we haven't developed artificial wombs and made you irrelevant except as pleasure slaves.
Cheers!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 08, @12:07AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
The domestic violence business is just one more hypocritical branch in the twisted tree of feminism.
I have seen the same premise, as the one used in this story, used before to garner sympathy for the concept of "woman as victim." It tries to show vulnerable pregnant women as victims of d.v., and thereby: illicit great sympathy, get more money, and get more favor to destroy more men and empower more women.
The place this hypocrisy really falls apart is when someone comes along and introduces legislation (as was done a while back in the U.S.) to make anyone assaulting a pregnant woman not only guilty of assault against the woman, but also guilty of assault against the unborn human inside. If passed this law would have forced the "fetus" to be fully recognized as a human life. If the baby died in such an assault the perpetrator could be charged with murder. The Pro Choice feminists went nuts and opposed this law in the interest of "Pro Choice." "We can't recognize that the fetus is a human life. It'll lead to a taking away of our right to abortion," they reasoned.
So how much then, do these feminists really give a damn about the baby of a pregnant woman. Spare me the blatant feminist hypocrisy that is so evidently underlying this story, please, or just simply pass a law to protect those who assault pregnant women as assaulting two human lives.
Remember, in the feminist movement, it is only the woman's rights that are important. "The woman was battered." The fact she is battered while pregnant is only important to the feminist in as much as it puts the woman's life more in danger, but who cares about the baby.
It's all about the woman in the feminist movement. Babies and children are just collateral and bargaining chips that are used to extort more money and revenge from men, who are the targets of their hate war.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titled : FYI
I read your piece on abused mothers. The quote of stats from 4% to 17% doesn't look out of the ordinary. However except for the omitted half. That omitted half is the violence against men. Which no doubt to your surprise is roughly the same numbers.
The alberta study done on domestic violence showed that women were the victims in 11% of the cases and that men were the victims in about 12% of the cases. However, government has spent almost a million dollars in tax payers money promoting the violence against women stat. One would literally have to jump through hoops in order to see the stats showing the violence against men.
Your article is short and sensational but is misleading. Are you really reducing yourself to such writing, Mandel? People are catching on to feminist propaganda tactics and since men are assaulted at the same rate as women I find it interesting that nobody under any circumstances ask men if they are being abused?
Pregnancy brings complications to relationships and domestic violence is already a complex issue despite the narrow minded trite that comes out of the many bastions of dv workers.
The point is that it is very often the pregnant woman who is doing the abusing. That the 'blaming the victim' mentality is a falsehood that actually causes more domestic violence. But then again it is referred to as an industry more often these days.
Your article shows no proof of increased violence towards women during pregnancy, but then again maybe I read it just because the title was catching. Seriously I have read far better and more honest work from you in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a couple of posts about the supposed hypocracy of people who support abortion and are also sad when, say, a miscarrage ends a pregnancy.
The thing is is that early in the pregnancy, a fetus is not a human being, its a blob of cells. But it has the potential, or possibility, of becoming a human being.
Its very hard to make anologies on this subject but you could liken it to a scholarship or a great job offer. If you turn it down, that's your choice and nothing is really lost. But if you have that potential and then its taken away from you it can really suck.
The pro-choice camp (rightly) decries the GOP's repeated attempts to classify fetuses as human beings as a foot-in-the-door approach to banning abortion. If a fetus is a human being, and it can't survive outside the womb, shouldn't it be illegal to remove it?
But people should have some recourse if that potential for life is taken from them away it is wanted. i.e. a pregnant woman is assaulted and the fetus dies, or a doctor botches a procedure which aborts the pregnancy.
And to go off on a tangent, I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were talking about a court case on whether brining new charges for an old crime amounted to double jepordy. I think it involved some guy who was convicted for assaulting someone in a robbery. He didn't serve much time as the victim survived. But later the victim in the assualt died while playing basketball, and a doctor said it was because of the assault. So, years later, the man who was convicted for assualt was being tried for murder.
My point is that I think women who use drugs or otherwise damamge the fetus and don't get an abortion should be taken to the cleaners for child abuse. I wanted to explain this because I know a pro-lifers head would probably explode over such a position, but it does make sense when you look at it. If a woman who drinks like a fish gets pregnant and gets an abortion in the first trimester, its alright because its only a potential for human life. But if she carries the pregnancy to term and the baby is born with downs syndrome, she has condemed it to a life of physical and mental handicaps. She needs to be punished, just like parents who smoke around their kids ought to be punished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, one thing that is overlooked is the issue of change. If a woman gets pregnant and does nothing to interfere with that pregnancy, and if everything goes well, which I would venture to guess is the vast majority of pregnancies, then the change from "embryo" to "fetus" to eventual "living baby" is unavoidable. In which case, the essential nature of the "embryo-fetus-baby" never changes.
In other words, aside from induced and/or spontaneous abortion, the nature of an "embryo" doesn't differ from that of a living baby. The "embryo" WILL become a living baby if left alone and if no serious medical complications arise, hence its nature doesn't change.
In other words, it's a human being.
If, on the other hand, one argues that it's essential nature does change from embryo to baby, then at what point does that change take place?
"Well, nobody really knows!" some will say.
In which case, logic would indicate that if we are to err, then we should err on the side of caution due to lack of knowledge.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to see graphic pictures of "lumps of tissue" and "pieces of meat", go to
www.abortiontv.org
I don't know anything about these people or this site, except that it was once a link from mensnewsdaily. I don't claim to know when human life begins, but I do know when something isn't a lump of tissue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 09, @01:05AM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Or you could go here:
ht.//www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html
Notice the perfectly formed little hand at 8 weeks. Hi, little lumpy is waving at you. Kind of reminds you of what you see in war, only on a miniature scale.
Distancing ourselves from the horror of the reality of human slaughter at any level makes it less personal and more acceptable. Getting closer, well that's entirely another story. Lump is a good term for a fetus, it kind of reminds me of the term acceptable losses in combat. In an overpopulated world all human life is just devalued currency in the hands of the more powerful manipulating forces. Abortion, Euthanasia (pull the plug), cannon fodder, it's all just a part of modern living in our sophisticated controlled environment, until it happens to you, or at least gets really close, then somehow it usually translates to a more intimate collection of details and nuances. I'd harden my heart to the reality of it all, but I've already done that, and after a while I realized I wasn’t really living in a way that made me personally happy. It’s never ceases to amaze me, how soft hearted people live as long as they do, considering how soft in the head they are in dealing with the brutal facts of life.
Happy Trails, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats my opinion anyways. Men and women can work out the differences in mediation if need be. But if one of the parents really wants to raise the child than its their sole responsibility to do so.
This by no means stops men from contributing money to their children's lives if they so want. But it also helps men who want to start families with other women who want a nuclear family model.
Women tend to be more naturally dependent. Beak that role if they want equality and make them responsible for their decisions. If they want sole custody they have sole responsibility. The only reason its any other way is because the god dam state doesn't want to pay for these women. Why else would they legalize fraud?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 09, @11:10AM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Try this instead:
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
