This may convey an answer as to the atheist/ abortion question
I dont suggest you post anything other than vote , there are appropriate threads for expressing points
I don't know that I see the value in this poll as it's pretty obvious that men aren't getting abortions. It's a women's issue. Yes, I think men can have very valuable opinions and imput on the topic, but I don't know what you could be getting at by asking the general population if they've ever had a procedure specific to women.
You might as well ask me if I'm for/against prostate screening and if I've ever gotten it done. I don't mean to come across as snarky, I just think the results will be inherently misleading.
Well, there are cases where men are at least consulted in the decision making process. (Couples and such...)
Most cases where abortion becomes an issue had some male involvement at one time. ;)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 08:27:45 PM
I don't know that I see the value in this poll as it's pretty obvious that men aren't getting abortions. It's a women's issue.
requesting a child upbringing stipend from the recognised father by court gets men on the action, don't you think?
Also if you are indeed a loner and cannot imagine a personal bond interactive and intimate, in which decisions are jointly reached, you can as a man select the "didnt do it" options.
Your concern is the false positive in the "done it" votes which can only come from men that participated in the experience somehow, otherwise why would they care?
unlike the pathology of prostate cancer, pregnancies are not a disease and children need 2 to happen
Moreover, would you really like to see men stop researching eg. for a breast cancer cure, as it is appropriately not their issue?
I don't understand the choices. Pro-choice is "yes abortion" (not exactly the way I would put it) or is "yes abortion" meaning "yes I had one?"
And regardless, I agree with DJ, men can't have abortions (unless my mom lied to me about the birds and the bees) so their answer would always be "no I didn't have one" wouldn't it?
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 07:56:24 PM
And regardless, I agree with DJ, men can't have abortions (unless my mom lied to me about the birds and the bees) so their answer would always be "no I didn't have one" wouldn't it?
So the man in a relationship has no emotional investment in the question of the abortion of his child? He can have no opinion?
I know that it is the womans opinion that weighs strongest, as it naturally must, but if you can't see that this could potentially affect the man in a relationship, then I am a little disappointed in you. Just because you are not directly hit by the bomb, doesn't mean you are not affected.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 22, 2012, 08:09:14 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 07:56:24 PM
And regardless, I agree with DJ, men can't have abortions (unless my mom lied to me about the birds and the bees) so their answer would always be "no I didn't have one" wouldn't it?
So the man in a relationship has no emotional investment in the question of the abortion of his child? He can have no opinion?
I know that it is the womans opinion that weighs strongest, as it naturally must, but if you can't see that this could potentially affect the man in a relationship, then I am a little disappointed in you. Just because you are not directly hit by the bomb, doesn't mean you are not affected.
Ouch. Don't be disappointed. I'm not saying a man has no interest in the outcome of a pregnancy, I'm saying physically, a man is not capable of getting pregnant and thus is not physically capable of having an abortion.
If we want to expand the poll to say something like "My partner or I have had one" then that's different. That's just not the way I took the question. "did it" or "didn't do it" is a pretty vague way to describe it.
poll adjusted to be more clear on what I think was the intent of the poll.
also added options for men who were not in agreement with their partner.
See, now we're all on the same page. And don't feel bad, Ali.
Awwwww, our first fight.
LMAO (sorry, couldn't help myself.)
I voted "Pro choice, but I'm a single guy"
...Oh wait... That option wasn't available. :(
I think that's covered under "pro-choice but, I (or partner) didn't abort"
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
I think that's covered under "pro-choice but, I (or partner) didn't abort"
Probably, yet by implication, it seems directed at women and couples.
Quote from: pytheas on February 22, 2012, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 08:27:45 PM
I don't know that I see the value in this poll as it's pretty obvious that men aren't getting abortions. It's a women's issue.
requesting a child upbringing stipend from the recognised father by court gets men on the action, don't you think?
Also if you are indeed a loner and cannot imagine a personal bond interactive and intimate, in which decisions are jointly reached, you can as a man select the "didnt do it" options.
Your concern is the false positive in the "done it" votes which can only come from men that participated in the experience somehow, otherwise why would they care?
unlike the pathology of prostate cancer, pregnancies are not a disease and children need 2 to happen
Moreover, would you really like to see men stop researching eg. for a breast cancer cure, as it is appropriately not their issue?
This is silly.
Here were my concerns: Does every man ask every sex partner that he's ever had if she's had an abortion? If not, the survey wouldn't be accurate. Even if he asks every partner, there's a good chance that she could lie to him, making the survey inaccurate. Quite simply, a woman is the only person that
knows if she's had an abortion. Maybe it's nit-picking, but I work at a research firm where we deal with surveys on a daily basis, so it jumped out at me as a problem.
Whitney fixed most of it, so carry on, but I think it's a bit silly to say that I was implying that men shouldn't care about breast cancer research because I found the structure of the poll to be flawed.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 10:45:08 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
I think that's covered under "pro-choice but, I (or partner) didn't abort"
Probably, yet by implication, it seems directed at women and couples.
Well, in fairness, women are the only ones (physically) who can have abortions, and typically you would really only expect the man to be really involved if he is part of some sort of coupling (even if that just means like friends with benefits.) What I mean is, if a guy had, for example, a one night stand, he might well not even know if later it turns out that the woman is pregnant because they're not in touch and the woman might well assume that the man doesn't care or might not necessarily know who the father is.
I added options for men who are single. Is everyone mostly happy with the options now? (other than allowing men to answer on behalf of their partner)
Yes. The Grumpy One is less displeased now than before. :P
Hmmm, I think it is an interesting poll.
For the ones whom did abort I am wondering the reason.
Medical
Marital status of participants
Age of participants
Lack of committed relationship of participants
Product of rape
Convenience
Not that it matters, but would have been interesting to know.
But i guess with only two abortions it isn't a great sample set to get a gauge on ratios in society.
Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 06:14:12 PM
Hmmm, I think it is an interesting poll.
For the ones whom did abort I am wondering the reason.
Medical
Marital status of participants
Age of participants
Lack of committed relationship of participants
Product of rape
Convenience
Not that it matters, but would have been interesting to know.
But i guess with only two abortions it isn't a great sample set to get a gauge on ratios in society.
It probably won't surprise some of you that the reason was we couldnt afford it!
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 23, 2012, 06:18:31 PM
It probably won't surprise some of you that the reason was we couldnt afford it!
At the end of the day, do reasons really matter? Is, for instance, "I changed my mind about wanting kids" a "better" or "worse" reason than "This pregnancy is a result of rape"..?
As long as the end result is the same and the reason is satisfactory to the person undergoing the procedure, why should the rest of us care?
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 23, 2012, 06:18:31 PM
It probably won't surprise some of you that the reason was we couldnt afford it!
At the end of the day, do reasons really matter? Is, for instance, "I changed my mind about wanting kids" a "better" or "worse" reason than "This pregnancy is a result of rape"..?
As long as the end result is the same and the reason is satisfactory to the person undergoing the procedure, why should the rest of us care?
It was just a general interest thing for me. Not to judge others on.
For my case I would be much more likely to abort based on medical reasons, or rape
Not being in a committed relationship used to be a common reason, but I think society has changed significantly, it is quite common now that some people would rather be solo mums than to abort.
Doing it for financial reasons shows a maturity with regards to the complexities of life.
I find the reasons quite interesting actually.
What if the reason is "in our culture we devalue women, so we aborted the baby when we found out it was a girl?"
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 07:12:15 PM
What if the reason is "in our culture we devalue women, so we aborted the baby when we found out it was a girl?"
Yes, that is a reason that is commonly used in some cultures.
I feel it is a problem with the culture and not the abortion per se.
However, over time these cultures will find that females become desired as females become scarce.
Lots of males will grow up and die as single men, The family line will die off and for those cultures that is a big issue too.
Is it a "worse" reason than some of the others listed?
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 07:12:15 PM
What if the reason is "in our culture we devalue women, so we aborted the baby when we found out it was a girl?"
Reason enough for me.
My moral hight horse is really a pony, and from my moral pony, I don't see how I have the right to dictate equality and respect to a society I am not a part of, nor do I see any justification for calling someone's personal choice universally bad.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 07:32:33 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 07:12:15 PM
What if the reason is "in our culture we devalue women, so we aborted the baby when we found out it was a girl?"
Reason enough for me.
My moral hight horse is really a pony, and from my moral pony, I don't see how I have the right to dictate equality and respect to a society I am not a part of, nor do I see any justification for calling someone's personal choice universally bad.
-going on number four, was building a football team and an extra financial burden
-the baby routine is a toll in the freedom of the adult that should for the child's sake last 3 years, enough is enough we had our share
-we wanted it beacause we hadn;t done it
-I did it to her, and I would eat it-sautee with shallots- if I was a little bit more religious...
As a single male before partnering with serious gravity, without my genes being involved, I did not allow myself an oppinion. When my genes were involved I strongly suggested and encouraged the day after pill.That was a risk, if she kept it i would have a problem. I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
Is that a joke?
I never know what to make of the things you say.
Quote from: Ali on February 26, 2012, 06:43:23 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
Is that a joke?
I never know what to make of the things you say.
People wonder why i'm glad i'm gay... :\
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 26, 2012, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 26, 2012, 06:43:23 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
Is that a joke?
I never know what to make of the things you say.
People wonder why i'm glad i'm gay... :\
Right?!? Like even if it is a joke, oh haha, there is nothing funnier than jokes about punching pregnant ladies until they miscarry. What a laugh riot. ::)
Quote from: Ali on February 26, 2012, 08:16:28 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 26, 2012, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 26, 2012, 06:43:23 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
Is that a joke?
I never know what to make of the things you say.
People wonder why i'm glad i'm gay... :\
Right?!? Like even if it is a joke, oh haha, there is nothing funnier than jokes about punching pregnant ladies until they miscarry. What a laugh riot. ::)
*hugs Ali*
Ugh! Pytheas, try to be more fucking aware that punching pregnant women and miscarriages arent something to joke about.
The woman i met at work had a miscarriage this year... It can be emotional and devastating.
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on February 23, 2012, 07:32:33 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 07:12:15 PM
What if the reason is "in our culture we devalue women, so we aborted the baby when we found out it was a girl?"
Reason enough for me.
My moral hight horse is really a pony, and from my moral pony, I don't see how I have the right to dictate equality and respect to a society I am not a part of, nor do I see any justification for calling someone's personal choice universally bad.
-going on number four, was building a football team and an extra financial burden
-the baby routine is a toll in the freedom of the adult that should for the child's sake last 3 years, enough is enough we had our share
-we wanted it beacause we hadn;t done it
-I did it to her, and I would eat it-sautee with shallots- if I was a little bit more religious...
As a single male before partnering with serious gravity, without my genes being involved, I did not allow myself an oppinion. When my genes were involved I strongly suggested and encouraged the day after pill.That was a risk, if she kept it i would have a problem. I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
pytheas - This reads very badly. Please keep inflammatory/offensive thoughts like this to yourself in the future. Tank
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2012, 08:30:23 PM
pytheas - This reads very badly. Please keep inflammatory/offensive thoughts like this to yourself in the future. Tank
"typically you would really only expect the man to be really involved if he is part of some sort of coupling"
"typically you would really only expect the man to be really an asshole and that is why I am happy to be gay?"
just playing the role Tank, to fit into the "reading very nicely" swiping generalisations.
Typically expect anything and everything
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
As a single male before partnering with serious gravity, without my genes being involved, I did not allow myself an oppinion. When my genes were involved I strongly suggested and encouraged the day after pill.That was a risk, if she kept it i would have a problem. I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
That is way over the top...
Quote from: pytheas on February 27, 2012, 02:29:39 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2012, 08:30:23 PM
pytheas - This reads very badly. Please keep inflammatory/offensive thoughts like this to yourself in the future. Tank
"typically you would really only expect the man to be really involved if he is part of some sort of coupling"
"typically you would really only expect the man to be really an asshole and that is why I am happy to be gay?"
just playing the role Tank, to fit into the "reading very nicely" swiping generalisations.
Typically expect anything and everything
Oh yes, it's my fault and SweetD's fault that you commented that you would "punch the loinfruit" (gag) out of a woman. If you have a problem with my comments, please don't bother to actually address what I said, just talk about sickening domestic violence instead, and when you get called on it, point fingers at other people.
It is a complicated issue. Ultimately, the man has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, just like a woman has no right to tell a man to do with his body. I'd be for a thing like the comedy Junior (starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito), where if we had the technology, the guy could take over bearing the child if he wanted to keep it. But we don't have that and I don't see how forcing a woman too bear a child against her will can be justified.
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
We had a case in NZ where a future Rugby League star did this. He phoned up his pregnant girlfriend and got her to meet him at a park, whereby him and a friend attacked her to force an abortion.
This is sometimes the result of law protecting the woman's right to abort but not the man's right to abort.
I would never condone this, it is horrific, but it is a reality of our society, given the rules we live under.
Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
We had a case in NZ where a future Rugby League star did this. He phoned up his pregnant girlfriend and got her to meet him at a park, whereby him and a friend attacked her to force an abortion.
This is sometimes the result of law protecting the woman's right to abort but not the man's right to abort.
I would never condone this, it is horrific, but it is a reality of our society, given the rules we live under.
Which rules would be better?
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 27, 2012, 03:28:43 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
As a single male before partnering with serious gravity, without my genes being involved, I did not allow myself an oppinion. When my genes were involved I strongly suggested and encouraged the day after pill.That was a risk, if she kept it i would have a problem. I guess if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
That is way over the top...
To put it mildly. Ugh. Pytheas, I'm surprised you'd say something like that. Punch loinfruit out of the woman's belly? Seriously? Even as a joke, it's not funny in the slightest. Too many of us have had pregnancy complications and losses to be willing to accept anyone here saying something so crass. And then after Tank asked you to knock it off, you didn't apologize or back down. Show some class and consideration, please.
Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
if i didnt have the intelligence to prevent conceptions, I would have the brutality to punch my loinfruit out of the woman's belly
We had a case in NZ where a future Rugby League star did this. He phoned up his pregnant girlfriend and got her to meet him at a park, whereby him and a friend attacked her to force an abortion.
This is sometimes the result of law protecting the woman's right to abort but not the man's right to abort.
I would never condone this, it is horrific, but it is a reality of our society, given the rules we live under.
Women have the right to abort because it's their body affected, not a man's body being affected. If a man doesn't want a child, he does not have the right to harm the mother of the child. Instead, he can give up his parental rights entirely if he doesn't want anything to do with a baby. Attacking someone is never an option. The story you told about the woman in the park is horrific. :'( I sincerely hope she pressed charges and got a restraining order. Any "man" who would treat a woman that way needs mental help and to stay the hell out of sexual relationships for a good long while.
I've always found rubbies to be a better solution to unwanted pregnancies than violence.
Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 09:08:19 PM
Women have the right to abort because it's their body affected, not a man's body being affected. If a man doesn't want a child, he does not have the right to harm the mother of the child. Instead, he can give up his parental rights entirely if he doesn't want anything to do with a baby. Attacking someone is never an option. The story you told about the woman in the park is horrific. :'( I sincerely hope she pressed charges and got a restraining order. Any "man" who would treat a woman that way needs mental help and to stay the hell out of sexual relationships for a good long while.
IMO, in that story from New Zealand there was no "man"; there was a bitch... and then there was a pregnant woman. 8)
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 27, 2012, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 09:08:19 PM
Women have the right to abort because it's their body affected, not a man's body being affected. If a man doesn't want a child, he does not have the right to harm the mother of the child. Instead, he can give up his parental rights entirely if he doesn't want anything to do with a baby. Attacking someone is never an option. The story you told about the woman in the park is horrific. :'( I sincerely hope she pressed charges and got a restraining order. Any "man" who would treat a woman that way needs mental help and to stay the hell out of sexual relationships for a good long while.
IMO, in that story from New Zealand there was no "man"; there was a bitch... and then there was a pregnant woman. 8)
You're kinder than I'd be. ;D
Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 10:09:16 PM
You're kinder than I'd be. ;D
The Asmo prefers to neither judge nor condemn the actions of people he doesn't know in situations he might not be aware of in a country far, far away.
So the guy commited an act of violence. In his shoes, would I? Probably not. But can I really know that without actually
being in his shoes, complete with his mentality and all the rest of surrounding circumstances..?
I find the act itself disagreeable, but refrain from passing judgement on the person responsible.
Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 09:08:19 PM
Instead, he can give up his parental rights entirely if he doesn't want anything to do with a baby.
If the woman wants to keep it then by law she is entitled to child support from the father.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 27, 2012, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 10:09:16 PM
You're kinder than I'd be. ;D
The Asmo prefers to neither judge nor condemn the actions of people he doesn't know in situations he might not be aware of in a country far, far away.
So the guy commited an act of violence. In his shoes, would I? Probably not. But can I really know that without actually being in his shoes, complete with his mentality and all the rest of surrounding circumstances..?
I find the act itself disagreeable, but refrain from passing judgement on the person responsible.
By "surrounding circumstances" do you mean actions on the woman's part? What surrounding circumstances would make an attack like that okay? From the description, the attack sounds premeditated, not like something done in the heat of the moment.
Quote from: Stevil on February 28, 2012, 02:30:26 AM
Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 09:08:19 PM
Instead, he can give up his parental rights entirely if he doesn't want anything to do with a baby.
If the woman wants to keep it then by law she is entitled to child support from the father.
OK, in the states the law must be different then. Based on my understanding, here in Canada when a parent gives up parental rights, they give up all rights and responsibilities -- they no longer have to pay child support, but they also do not ever have the 'right' to the child, even if they change their mind later. Typically, a judge won't allow someone to give up parental rights just to get out of paying child support, there need to be other factors... but I imagine it's been done before.
Quote from: Ali on February 27, 2012, 07:04:03 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
This is sometimes the result of law protecting the woman's right to abort but not the man's right to abort.
I would never condone this, it is horrific, but it is a reality of our society, given the rules we live under.
Which rules would be better?
I don't have an answer to that.
Quote from: Amicale on February 28, 2012, 03:27:09 AM
OK, in the states the law must be different then. Based on my understanding, here in Canada when a parent gives up parental rights, they give up all rights and responsibilities -- they no longer have to pay child support, but they also do not ever have the 'right' to the child, even if they change their mind later. Typically, a judge won't allow someone to give up parental rights just to get out of paying child support, there need to be other factors... but I imagine it's been done before.
I live in NZ.
Maybe there is a way out, I don't know. I would think the woman would have to agree and be willing to miss out on child support.
Quote from: Anne D. on February 28, 2012, 03:05:26 AM
By "surrounding circumstances" do you mean actions on the woman's part?
Her actions, the weather or even time of day if it played a part... Surrounding circumstances are a sum of causes and triggers.
QuoteWhat surrounding circumstances would make an attack like that okay?
As stated, I find the act itself disagreeable, but for the attackers part, I would not call him an evil asshole if he was clinically insane or thoroughly provoked or otherwise put under the right stressers. That's from the top of my head.
Quote from: Stevil on February 28, 2012, 02:30:26 AM
Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 09:08:19 PM
Instead, he can give up his parental rights entirely if he doesn't want anything to do with a baby.
If the woman wants to keep it then by law she is entitled to child support from the father.
and she usually nails him with DNA test
Amicale, I was told I had no sisters and brothers because of 8 miscarriages before me, including 2 doctor-induced mistakes and 1 airplane accident. Also I
imagined the clockwork orange flavour on the issue and amazed I read it actually happened! Shit happens.Also, People make children to use them, I dont like it , but it happens. Children can be bought for sex slaves, I dont like it , but it happens
I do not think it is ok to have a child and not to be connected to it. Its THe CHILD'S right.
women and men parents are to equal degree but in differing manner crass in this field.
After all, there are sperm banks, the godlike woman needs no attention from man anymore, and there will be cloning and surrogate immune-humanised female monkeys to bear them out for all those hardcore olympic boys out there.
I want to keep the ideal of sexual love and body admiration route to child-making, but that should require substantially more than a dick for the man, and in cases a Msc/M.arts degree in mothering for the woman.
So as the surgeon;s motto for tumor suspision "if in doubt, better out"
On the way out, exit, abort, release, there should be no bars, and some conducive enabling more,easier out
if you are to keep, well, questions and tests, as severe as you should be asking yourself
Quote from: pytheas on February 28, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
I do not think it is ok to have a child and not to be connected to it. Its THe CHILD'S right.
women and men parents are to equal degree but in differing manner crass in this field.
After all, there are sperm banks, the godlike woman needs no attention from man anymore, and there will be cloning and surrogate immune-humanised female monkeys to bear them out for all those hardcore olympic boys out there.
Wow, you just sounded like some of those anti-science, pro-life, one man-one woman crazy christians. Scary
Quote from: Asmodean on February 28, 2012, 07:06:43 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on February 28, 2012, 03:05:26 AM
By "surrounding circumstances" do you mean actions on the woman's part?
Her actions, the weather or even time of day if it played a part... Surrounding circumstances are a sum of causes and triggers.
QuoteWhat surrounding circumstances would make an attack like that okay?
As stated, I find the act itself disagreeable, but for the attackers part, I would not call him an evil asshole if he was clinically insane or thoroughly provoked or otherwise put under the right stressers. That's from the top of my head.
Yeah, it's possible with any act of violence that the actor could be insane and therefore not fully responsible for his/her actions. The attack described, though, (rugby player and friend call up pregnant girlfriend to arrange meeting and then beat her so she aborts) sounds premeditated. It also just seems a pretty egregious act to say "I can't judge" about. If the entire story was "A man hit a woman," then I'd be with you on the "we don't know the circumstances" idea, but I think this story is fleshed out enough to say, yeah, w/o qualification, that's horrible. Not trying to attack you or get holier than thou. I just had a big "Huh?" reaction when I read your first post about not judging the rugby guy.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 28, 2012, 08:11:23 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 28, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
I do not think it is ok to have a child and not to be connected to it. Its THe CHILD'S right.
women and men parents are to equal degree but in differing manner crass in this field.
After all, there are sperm banks, the godlike woman needs no attention from man anymore, and there will be cloning and surrogate immune-humanised female monkeys to bear them out for all those hardcore olympic boys out there.
Wow, you just sounded like some of those anti-science, pro-life, one man-one woman crazy christians. Scary
yeah, really...
are you against single parents too? i mean, sheesh...
Quote from: Anne D. on February 29, 2012, 02:51:13 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on February 28, 2012, 07:06:43 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on February 28, 2012, 03:05:26 AM
By "surrounding circumstances" do you mean actions on the woman's part?
Her actions, the weather or even time of day if it played a part... Surrounding circumstances are a sum of causes and triggers.
QuoteWhat surrounding circumstances would make an attack like that okay?
As stated, I find the act itself disagreeable, but for the attackers part, I would not call him an evil asshole if he was clinically insane or thoroughly provoked or otherwise put under the right stressers. That's from the top of my head.
Yeah, it's possible with any act of violence that the actor could be insane and therefore not fully responsible for his/her actions. The attack described, though, (rugby player and friend call up pregnant girlfriend to arrange meeting and then beat her so she aborts) sounds premeditated. It also just seems a pretty egregious act to say "I can't judge" about. If the entire story was "A man hit a woman," then I'd be with you on the "we don't know the circumstances" idea, but I think this story is fleshed out enough to say, yeah, w/o qualification, that's horrible. Not trying to attack you or get holier than thou. I just had a big "Huh?" reaction when I read your first post about not judging the rugby guy.
As someone that interacts with you and kind of considers you a friend, I find your lack of judgement appealing. As a woman looking at a man who carried out a plan to beat a woman until she miscarried, I find your lack of judgement disturbing. :)
I see it as a matter of biological connection. The zygote, embryo and fetus is biologically connected to the mother and relies entirely on the mother's biological processes for life. It's a much, much deeper dependence and connection than any connection after birth. Until the baby is born and the cord cut, the soon-to-be-human is still potential individual life, not yet an individual deserving of the same protections as children and adults. Abortion is tragic, but preventing it in any way is a violation of one of the most fundamental rights human beings have enshrined in law, the right to control one's own body. I would no sooner assert control over an abortion than I would to remove someone's arm or drug someone without their consent.
So yeah, pro-choice single male. :)
Quote from: Will on February 29, 2012, 04:46:51 AM
I see it as a matter of biological connection. The zygote, embryo and fetus is biologically connected to the mother and relies entirely on the mother's biological processes for life. It's a much, much deeper dependence and connection than any connection after birth. Until the baby is born and the cord cut, the soon-to-be-human is still potential individual life, not yet an individual deserving of the same protections as children and adults. Abortion is tragic, but preventing it in any way is a violation of one of the most fundamental rights human beings have enshrined in law, the right to control one's own body. I would no sooner assert control over an abortion than I would to remove someone's arm or drug someone without their consent.
So yeah, pro-choice single male. :)
Hmm... Will, you said "until the baby is born and the cord cut", the baby isn't deserving of the same protections as children and adults.
1. Do you have any problem with third trimester/late stage abortions? That is, after the baby would almost certainly be viable?
2. If it was your girlfriend or wife who was pregnant, and she decided to terminate the pregnancy a week before the baby was due, would you still think the baby wasn't deserving of protection? Would you protest, or be OK with the termination?
You don't have to answer those at all, if you don't want to. I'm not trying to make you or anyone else out into a bad guy, I'm pro-choice also, at least for the first two trimesters for sure, and in ALL cases of medical emergency no matter when in the pregnancy it is. But I'm playing devil's advocate, because I do think that it's possible to make an argument about the point of viability. If a baby is after the point of viability and could likely be born with very few complications/survive on his or her own, that's where abortion gets really iffy for me, and that's where I think the baby almost certainly DOES obtain the same rights an already-born human has. After all, if they could live and breathe and survive and whether they live or die boils down entirely to their current "location"... well... I'd say they've obtained any of the faculties an already-born baby has, aside from actual birth.
What do you (or anyone else) think of those ideas? Rip 'em to shreds if you can, I'm looking to pin my own ideas down more precisely.
Quote from: Amicale on February 29, 2012, 05:09:24 AM
But I'm playing devil's advocate, because I do think that it's possible to make an argument about the point of viability. If a baby is after the point of viability and could likely be born with very few complications/survive on his or her own, that's where abortion gets really iffy for me.
Yes, I think you have to visualise the event.
You either provide a magic pill which poisons the baby but leaves the mother unscathed, or you cut the cord and let the baby suffocate inside the womb, or you deliver the baby and then knock it on the head to kill it. In all cases you are having to do something special in order to kill the child rather than simply not doing something special to keep it alive.
But if we think of a 36 week unborn, then you have to consider that we have the technology to keep it alive. You would have to prevent putting it in an incubator and simply let it die on its own. But where do you put it? Stick it in a closet somewhere out of sight and then come back in an hour or two hoping that it is dead?
Oh, and the other dilemma.
What if a pregnant woman gets mugged and her unborn baby dies?
Does the attacker get done for murder?
Quote from: Stevil on February 29, 2012, 06:09:25 AM
Oh, and the other dilemma.
What if a pregnant woman gets mugged and her unborn baby dies?
Does the attacker get done for murder?
I think that if the attacker knows (or can see) that the women is pregnant then it should be murder. If that is not the case then it should be manslaughter.
Quote from: Amicale on February 29, 2012, 05:09:24 AM1. Do you have any problem with third trimester/late stage abortions? That is, after the baby would almost certainly be viable?
Do I have a problem with them? Absolutely. As I said, abortion is tragic. Do I think they should be illegal? No. I really have concluded that 'life', using the modern political terminology, begins at birth. Until there is biological separation from the mother, the father, the state, the church, and everyone else needs to stay out of it and allow the pregnant woman to come to her own decision, as it truly is her body.
Quote from: Amicale on February 29, 2012, 05:09:24 AM2. If it was your girlfriend or wife who was pregnant, and she decided to terminate the pregnancy a week before the baby was due, would you still think the baby wasn't deserving of protection? Would you protest, or be OK with the termination?
I would protest, yes, but not in any legal way. If I were prepared to care for the baby, I would offer to take sole custody and become a single father. Still, it would be an offer, a plea, not a demand. At the end of the day, the decision to abort or not to abort is not mine.
My position may seem absolutist, and I suppose it is, but my position is both one rooted in my principles and in the political reality of the slippery slope. Disallowing abortions of any kind opens the door to more and more restrictions, most of which are based in religious doctrine, not medicine or principle. The right to choose is as fundamental a human right in my mind as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial. It is the freedom of privacy.
Quote from: Tom62 on February 29, 2012, 06:28:43 AM
I think that if the attacker knows (or can see) that the women is pregnant then it should be murder. If that is not the case then it should be manslaughter.
Why would an attacker get murder when the woman who knows that herself is pregnant does not get murder for committing abortion?
Quote from: Will on February 29, 2012, 06:30:46 AM
My position may seem absolutist, and I suppose it is, but my position is both one rooted in my principles and in the political reality of the slippery slope. Disallowing abortions of any kind opens the door to more and more restrictions, most of which are based in religious doctrine, not medicine or principle. The right to choose is as fundamental a human right in my mind as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial. It is the freedom of privacy.
What about your own child's right to live? Do you think they don't have that right until the point they are born?
Trying to define rights is a very tricky business.
Quote from: Stevil on February 29, 2012, 06:46:16 AM
What about your own child's right to live? Do you think they don't have that right until the point they are born?
I think human rights should apply when it gets promoted from fetus to child. Before that, it has no right to live, but has that privilege as long as the mother is willing to grant it.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 29, 2012, 07:06:18 AM
I think human rights should apply when it gets promoted from fetus to child. Before that, it has no right to live, but has that privilege as long as the mother is willing to grant it.
Nice call.
In my amoral philosophical world, I don't believe in rights. Rights assumes that some of our actions are untouchable, that we ought to always be allowed to do those, which leaves other actions free range for someone or even a governing body to infringe upon.
Amorally the government can only infringe on any of our actions when absolutely necessary in order to support a stable and functional society, otherwise the oppressed society might rebel, given the opportunity, against the government (they probably wouldn't rebel with force against the government, but defiantly they will seek unsafe underground abortions)
With regards to a mugger attacking a pregnant woman and in the process killing her child, society is likely to seek revenge by force, this will create instability, hence government needs to protect the pregnant woman and her fetus.
With regards to a pregnant woman terminating her own pregnancy, society allows it, thus government ought not to infringe on the mother's choice.
I'm in the "independent lifeform" camp. When there is a reasonable expectation that the fetus could survive outside the womb, with medical support, the right of the child as an independent life form kicks in. The parents can give it up if they don't want to be parents, but at that point the baby can get along without them, and be adopted.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 29, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
I'm in the "independent lifeform" camp. When there is a reasonable expectation that the fetus could survive outside the womb, with medical support, the right of the child as an independent life form kicks in. The parents can give it up if they don't want to be parents, but at that point the baby can get along without them, and be adopted.
I agree with this, except in the case where a devastating medical problem is found with the child or medical emergencies to save the life of the mother. I just read a really touching article on Slate written by a mother whose son has Tay Sachs and at 2 is deaf, blind, paralyzed, and becoming more and more unresponsive. They expect he will die within the year. And she says that if the prenatal testing had revealed that he had Tay Sachs when he was in utero, she would have aborted. Not because she doesn't love him or isn't able to deal with his disability, but because she loves him so much that she would have wanted to save him from the suffering that he has had to go through in his very short life. :'(
But otherwise, in a healthy baby and a healthy mom, I don't see a strong case for terminating past the point of viability. This is crude, but regardless of if the baby is alive or dead, they would have to "get it out", so the mom isn't really going to be saved from either induced labor or surgery by killing the baby. It makes more sense to me to deliver the baby alive and then adopt it out if the parents don't want it.
Quote from: Ali on February 29, 2012, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 29, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
I'm in the "independent lifeform" camp. When there is a reasonable expectation that the fetus could survive outside the womb, with medical support, the right of the child as an independent life form kicks in. The parents can give it up if they don't want to be parents, but at that point the baby can get along without them, and be adopted.
I agree with this, except in the case where a devastating medical problem is found with the child or medical emergencies to save the life of the mother. I just read a really touching article on Slate written by a mother whose son has Tay Sachs and at 2 is deaf, blind, paralyzed, and becoming more and more unresponsive. They expect he will die within the year. And she says that if the prenatal testing had revealed that he had Tay Sachs when he was in utero, she would have aborted. Not because she doesn't love him or isn't able to deal with his disability, but because she loves him so much that she would have wanted to save him from the suffering that he has had to go through in his very short life. :'(
But otherwise, in a healthy baby and a healthy mom, I don't see a strong case for terminating past the point of viability. This is crude, but regardless of if the baby is alive or dead, they would have to "get it out", so the mom isn't really going to be saved from either induced labor or surgery by killing the baby. It makes more sense to me to deliver the baby alive and then adopt it out if the parents don't want it.
Good post, Ali. Makes more sense to me, too -- since the birth mother would have to go through surgery/induced labor anyhow, it makes more sense to deliver the baby and give the baby up for adoption to parents who very badly want to adopt, if the birth parents can't keep the baby. That's assuming the baby and mother are both healthy, of course. I know it's been said before, but most (majority) of 3rd trimester pregnancies are 'voluntarily' ended for extreme medical reasons, not because someone doesn't want a baby. I mean, if you're 7 or 8 months into a pregnancy and you suddenly realize 'I can't raise this child'... at that point, almost every doctor and counselor you talk with will suggest adoption, not abortion. It's the viability issue.
Quote from: Sweetdeath
are you against single parents too? i mean, sheesh...
sheesh?
Ha-sheesh?
Sheesh kebab?
I am not against anyone apart from 3D stupidity. As we are limited to 2D, being against- or for- is rather desperate
the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure
Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both
Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable
Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians, switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children
The Island, by Aldous Huxley. Worth the read
Quote from: pytheas on February 29, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath
are you against single parents too? i mean, sheesh...
sheesh?
Ha-sheesh?
Sheesh kebab?
I am not against anyone apart from 3D stupidity. As we are limited to 2D, being against- or for- is rather desperate
the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure
Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both
Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable
Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians, switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children
The Island, by Aldous Huxley. Worth the read
Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.
Quote from: Amicale on February 29, 2012, 02:45:07 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 29, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath
are you against single parents too? i mean, sheesh...
sheesh?
Ha-sheesh?
Sheesh kebab?
I am not against anyone apart from 3D stupidity. As we are limited to 2D, being against- or for- is rather desperate
the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure
Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both
Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable
Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians, switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children
The Island, by Aldous Huxley. Worth the read
Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.
Don't feel bad Amicale. I believe my family is "third from worst" because we only have one child. ::)
Quote from: Ali on February 29, 2012, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: Amicale on February 29, 2012, 02:45:07 PM
Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.
Don't feel bad Amicale. I believe my family is "third from worst" because we only have one child. ::)
Sigh. ::) Yeah, true, I mean clearly your family's going to descend into chaos because you have one. :P Heck, I'm an only child.
Hmm... chaos... dysfunction... oh wait.... Look out T!! :D
Quote from: pytheas on February 29, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure
Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both
Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable
Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians, switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children
Would you want the law to intervene on such things? e.g. not allow single parents to adopt or get invetro? not allow parent to adopt only one? Provide penalties for parents of only one child?
How far would you go, if you had all the power?
Quote from: Amicale on February 29, 2012, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 29, 2012, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: Amicale on February 29, 2012, 02:45:07 PM
Seriously? How in the hell is it unhealthy for a loving single person to want a child, even if they're not in a committed relationship? Assuming they have the time, the energy, resources etc to raise the child, then how on earth is it unhealthy? Families DON'T live in a bubble. It's never JUST the mother and her child, or father and his child, alone all the time. There are other family members, friends, the greater community. It balances out. You can have a happy, healthy, adorable, well adjusted child. Trust me, I know. I have one.
Don't feel bad Amicale. I believe my family is "third from worst" because we only have one child. ::)
Sigh. ::) Yeah, true, I mean clearly your family's going to descend into chaos because you have one. :P Heck, I'm an only child.
Hmm... chaos... dysfunction... oh wait.... Look out T!! :D
I'm going to just ignore Pytheas' inane posts from now on...
If he speaks like a crazed fundie--
I'm not even going to bother responding.
Quote from: Stevil on February 29, 2012, 06:09:25 AM
Oh, and the other dilemma.
What if a pregnant woman gets mugged and her unborn baby dies?
Does the attacker get done for murder?
If the mugger knows the woman is pregnant it's murder. If not it's manslaughter.
Quote from: Stevil on February 29, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 29, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure
Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both
Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable
Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians, switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children
Would you want the law to intervene on such things? e.g. not allow single parents to adopt or get invetro? not allow parent to adopt only one? Provide penalties for parents of only one child?
How far would you go, if you had all the power?
And for the parents with only one child, would it matter if they wanted more but were unable to have them?
Quote from: Stevil on February 29, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 29, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
the worst is a "no parent" situation, orphans and institutional depersonalised abuse or/and extreme peer pressure
Second from worst is INTENTIONAL single genetic parent/guardian. The 1 to 1 with kids is unhealthy for both
Third from worst is the nuclear family 2 to 1, either both genetic parents or both guardians, or one and one, mixed/ single gender it does not matter. The jury of 2 adults and one child is the usual ego pump, pride and division, but workable
Things get brighter with the more the merrier, switching guardians, switching perspectives, community bringing up community's children
Would you want the law to intervene on such things? e.g. not allow single parents to adopt or get invetro? not allow parent to adopt only one? Provide penalties for parents of only one child?
How far would you go, if you had all the power?
The law? no way! you all got me wrong, but its a translation issue. as it may not be evident, I am happy with the fact scientists like me have or will make it possible for test tube clones, so I find adoption, or in-vitro fertilisation, or any combination of single, nuclear, multiple parenting, one kid, one kid from before and one from after, 5 kids, gay parents, cyborg or animal parents, whatever combination can provide, the sentimenal arena upon which a loving sociable fellow human can grow up.
what is the penalty for abusive parents? one can illustrate what the cost is.
If I had all the power, I would be concerned with wealth dispersal and re-distribution. social justice, equity, universal dignity. perspective Parents would undergo a simple test not because they have to, but if they want to claim the rich benefits they should get when with a kid. And if requested or recommended some gene therapy. for disease and for behaviour. Some people are not fit to have a kid. If they know it, its ok, they dont seek it
I would legalise things you wouldnt dream of, but in sychrony flood the system with knowledge and understanding.
how to? and what you can expect.
fundie? meaning fundamentalist? you would wish fundamentalists to have my understanding
I was speaking from the point of view of the kid, not the policy maker.
as for single parents, amicale i struck a sore chord, but i live the situation where the abusive parent is the mother who unfortunately has the law on her side.
in another set, the unsuitable father as bad as he is, i was told by psychologists, is better than no dad, and unfortunately for me, the unsuitable father as bad as he is, is preferable even from a better foster dad.
Aldous convinced me. The ideal parenting is more, varid and periodical rather than less and permanent