Abortion

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 29 Aug 2005 19:07

shreddaily wrote:I'm glad this topic isn' about abortion anymore and I can rant about something else.

Kester and Jeremy that is some messed up logic you are using. Sounds like something a preacher/infomercial would use o get them on you're side. Sex both feels good and is essential to our survival... if that is not a "purpose" nothing is. what actualy serves a purpose under your logic??
and why do animals who act only on instinct have sex. eat, stay alive, reproduce...thats their only purpose.
I seem to remember from biology class my professor saying something along the lins of...sex feels good because it is essential to our surviaval. If it hurt to have sex no one would do it and he species would die out. Especialy those specoes who act upon instinct, ie instincitvly do things that feel good....but I take all of that with a grain of salt.

You misunderstand what's being said. The reason sex feels good is because people who have better sex are more likely to have sex more. If they're more likely to have sex more than they're more likely to have offspring - hence passing on their genes. This is called evolution. It doesn't happen because we have some kind of goal to survive or to pass on our genes. That idea is an enourmas misunderstanding with evolution that is completely false.

Certainly you can say that the outcome of sex is the survivial of our species and we do have an instinct to survive. But the reason we have this instinct is again evolution - the strong our survival instinct the more likely we are to continue to survive (in generations). This isn't because it's some kind of goal or aim of ours - but rather it's just what happens. If it didn't happen we wouldn't be around now. But you need to understand that that's not a bad thing or a good thing - it's like the water running down the hill. There is no goal when water runs down a hill and if it gets to the bottom of the hill or not is not a good or bad thing. Any result will have some kind of effect on the hill and the environment around it - but those effects were not the aim of the water running down the hill. In fact water does not have aims in it's existence. Purpose is a human concept - it doesn't exist outside of humanity. You can talk about purpose when talking about specific human actions - ie. I had sex the other night purely for pleasure - that was my purpose. But you can't talk about purpose from a much more general overview of the universe because there is no such thing. Humans have sex for all kinds of reasons - none of those reasons are the "purpose" of sex.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 29 Aug 2005 19:19

Thanks for the unneeded evolution lecture... and may I add, duhhhh

So what you should have said is there is no such thing as purpose, not sex doesn't surve a purpose. Nothing "exsists outside of humanity" by the way J. Perception is all we have.... Water running down a hill

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 29 Aug 2005 19:54

That's a theory certainly, although I tend to believe that a genuine "ultimate" reality exists outside of our perception. What we see is probably fairly close to what actually exists - although obviously we get a biased and non accurate view of it due to our perception. I think that too often when talking about reality people talk about how it could be. And certainly it's true that we could all be just imagining that this world exists and all those kinds of theories - but I tend to believe that most likely the "ultimate" reality is very similar to what we actually experience.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 01 Sep 2005 21:02

tuomoruutufan wrote:Chrissy is a perfect example of how great the morning after pill would be.

Actually, I think HighDemonSlayer is a perfect example of how great the morning after pill would be.

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 01 Sep 2005 21:54

Daaaaaaiiiiiiiiiimmmm!!!

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 01 Sep 2005 22:01

oh christ! when i have kids they will soooooooo be wearing this t-shirt!

Spawn · Post by **Spawn** » 01 Sep 2005 22:37

LMFAO that shirt is the best!

HG · Post by HG » 02 Sep 2005 12:26

C-Fan wrote:
tuomoruutufan wrote:Chrissy is a perfect example of how great the morning after pill would be.
Actually, I think HighDemonSlayer is a perfect example of how great the morning after pill would be.

PWNED TO THE MAXXXX

Blackend · Post by **Blackend** » 09 Sep 2005 10:51

Pro-choice. Hey, if I had the choice of keeping an accident from happening, I would. But then again, I guess that's what rubbers are for.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 12 Sep 2005 20:43

The question of abortion basically comes down to should we let one human being take the life of a potential human being (No not a human, a potential human), no matter how difficult the circumstances for the mother?

I guess this leads to the question of whether or not the fetus is property of the mother until they are "physically" seperated. It's alot like the Dred Scott case where slaves were seen as mere property to their white slave owners.

If you want to continue with the Dred Scott analogy, the slaver owner was basically putting his own gratification before the slaves, just as the mother is putting her gratification before the life of her unborn child.

These women getting abortions are disgusting. 93% of women who have abortions are healthy mothers aborting health babies... 93 percentile! Abortion is one thing in cases of rape, incest or where the mother is in danger, but I get a sick feeling in my stomach when healthy mothers kill healthy babies. In fact, I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I hear about women aborting babies because sonograms show that they have physical or mental defects. Allowing abortion is promoting irresponsibility and basically giving mothers the right to back out of raising a child. The whole liberal "no-fault freedom" that began in the 60's is simply pathetic.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Sep 2005 21:06

I'd like to see a source on that 93% - I've heard figures that are completely opposed to that - but I am guessing it may change on country. I also don't think abortions usually occur because of the actual physical health of the mother but because of their financial situation and their abilities to adequetly raise a child. But I don't know how the system works in the US - from what I've heard generally about the US medical system - is it possible for a woman who can barely afford to feed her self to get an abortion?

I'm sure this has been said in this topic before but I'll say it again anyway. There are clearly strong and well reasoned views on both sides of the arguement. That's why I'm pro-choice - because I don't think it is possible to come to a sure agreement - so people who believe in abortion should be able to choose to have one and people who are opposed should be able to choose not to have one. This is saying that really on such a contentious and personal issue - it shouldn't be society that chooses if abortion is ok or not but the person in question. Of course this raises the issue of should abortions be tax payer funded or not. I say they should be because the people who are most likely to need abortions are those who cannot afford them and I would much prefer safe legal abortions than amature attempts. I think in Australia at least, abortions are not something people rush into and if they choose to get one - not much will stop them - including the law. (I mean if in your mind the choice is: having your life ruined or only having your life ruined if you get caught - which would you choose? - I'm not saying this is the actual case, but presumably it's what runs through the mind of many people getting abortions). Also there are plenty of tax payer funded things that many people in society disagree with. I think something like 85% of Australians were opposed to our involvement in the Iraq war yet we are all still paying taxes for it. I would say regardless of the moral stance on abortion - it is clearly in the best interests of society for abortions to happen in sterile hostpitals rather than back yards.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Sep 2005 19:03

As far as a source for the 93% thing, here she is. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reas ... tions.html

There are clearly strong and well reasoned views on both sides of the arguement. That's why I'm pro-choice - because I don't think it is possible to come to a sure agreement - so people who believe in abortion should be able to choose to have one and people who are opposed should be able to choose not to have one.

The problem with this is that abortion isn't just a personal issue as you imply it is, because it involves the taking of a life. No I'm not saying it's on the same level as a homicide, but everytime an abortion is performed, a potential person is killed. Whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life is irrelevent.

it shouldn't be society that chooses if abortion is ok or not but the person in question.

Who is the "person in question"? The mother who is putting her gratification before her unborn child, or the unborn child who is being killed?

I would say regardless of the moral stance on abortion - it is clearly in the best interests of society for abortions to happen in sterile hostpitals rather than back yards.

Agreed, but I would also say that it is in the best interest of society to not allow the killing of unborn children, period.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Sep 2005 19:57

I don't know if it would be very accurate to believe statistics that are 17 years old although when it's broken down like the way those are I guess it sounds about right. So I think you could probably assume from those results that 17 years ago the majority of people having abortions were either very young or couldn't afford a baby - probably a combination of both in many circumstances. In fact I would use those statistics to say that 17 years ago up to 76% of abortions occured because the person was either very young or couldn't afford to raise a child. (obviously the actual statistic would be lower than this amount but 76% of responces could be for these reasons). I also don't really trust statistics posted on propaganda websites. Statistics are very very easy to manipulate - not just by the wording of questions in surveys (which makes a significant difference) but in the way the results are presented. I think in the case of opinion surveys you need to see exactly what the questions were, what the sample space was, where they lived and the social factors of those locations.

Who is the "person in question"? The mother who is putting her gratification before her unborn child, or the unborn child who is being killed?

Obviously I'm talking about a person in the normal accept definition of the word "person" and not the definition used by people pushing particular views. I am sure you knew that.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Sep 2005 20:03

Another thing that ticks me off about the whole abortion issue is how it's basically protected under the whole "womens rights" banner. The 60's really did a lot to fuck the US up.

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 13 Sep 2005 20:16

tuomoruutufan · Post by **tuomoruutufan** » 13 Sep 2005 21:32

You cant stop abortions with laws, you can reduce the amount of abortions by making the morning after pill available (at a price that makes only what its AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE) you make the common birth control pill available, and you keep abortions legal for those who are to stupid to find a reason to fuck up.

If you give a woman ever available way to avoid pregnancy you will avoid abortion

ITS THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

condoms are not reliable. if we triple up have condoms everywhere, have the pill, and if every house hold had just single little mourning after pill in the medicine cabinet then you avoid abortion all together.

If we properly install all this in a responsible way and your 16-17 year old daughter is still that dumb to get pregnant than for fuck sake dont allow her to have a baby. Parenting is a responsibility it isnt a mandate, murder is wrong and is bad but its a part of life fucking deal with it you pussys.

YOU CANT STOP ABORTION IT WILL ALWAYS EXIST LEGAL OR ILEGAL IN THE BACK OF AN ALLEY, SQUATING ON THE TOILET, OR IN A STERILE CONTROLED PROFFESIONAL EVIREMENT. people are going to kill there unwanted children, its a part of nature many many species of animals do it to you cant stop it no matter how much your pussy bleeds when you see these pictures of aborted fetus

i hate to be cruel but wait thats life people die.

And dont say im some heartless dickhead who doesnt understand cause i been there i was at my best freind babies funereal 8 months old open casket he died of Sudden infant death syndrome before he got to speak his first word. There is no justifying it or explaining it your even baby`s born into a happy home dont live theres no gurnatees in any of this. 1 out of 3 women have miscariages and then look at all the diesease and altercations you can have.

Why does this relate to abortion, just make you realize there is nothing cute about life, Death is a part of it and nobody is guranteed a long life some of us live to be 3 weeks old in a mothers tummy and some of us live till were 100 years old you cant control that, so shut up.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Sep 2005 23:02

Dude... I read that twice... And I still don't know what the fuck you were getting at.

Blackend · Post by **Blackend** » 14 Sep 2005 08:46

Jeremy wrote: But I don't know how the system works in the US - from what I've heard generally about the US medical system - is it possible for a woman who can barely afford to feed her self to get an abortion?

Yes, there is. It's called welfare and it gets abused way too often and too much.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 14 Sep 2005 09:57

Welfare pays for abortions now? I'd really like to see a reliable (unlike Dan's NRLC source) source on that. Yes, there are programs set up through Planned Parenthood (and possibly other providers but I'm not sure about that) to help women who have a low or no income. But you have to apply and qualify for that to make sure it is not abused.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 14 Sep 2005 10:14

If MEN could get pregnant, this whole abortion thing wouldn't even be an issue. Plan B would be available from every drive through restaurant, coffee house, and pharmacy. Men wouldn't let something like a one night mistake take over the rest of our lives, and yet that is the position the male dominated legislature wants for our women.

This IS a women's rights issue. 100% of the people having abortions are women. Why is there a resistence to support our women in this country and provide effective birth controll, without having to deal with prescriptions and activist pharacists ?

It is also a descrimination issue. Why are we making laws that specifically target one sex ? That in and of itself shows that this is a controll issue. It is not a law to protect or serve the people, but rather serves to contoll one segment of the population.

It's not a shame that abortion is legal, it's a shame that we can't do better for our women. They deserve better options than having an abortion.