• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Want to reduce the number of abortions? Here's how:

Gandhi>Bush said:
I haven't demeaned women in any way.
You are saying that they are not qualified to make decisions about their own bodies. That is patronizing, controlling and demeaning.

Yes, I am sure this comes as a surprise to you, as we only rarely see PL ever having given the woman a thought.
Just because a woman is pregnant does not mean she is a baby factory.
Not as long as she herself are allowed the choice. But when you seek to restrict her access to abortion, then she becomes just that.
Just because a woman isn't pregnant doesn't mean she had an abortion or intends to or is even pro-choice.
Correct. Bit then nobody ever made that claim.
I think it's really silly to make such an abosolute case about an entire gender of people. It's like saying a man is celibate or he is gigolo. As if there is no middle ground.
Then isn't it good that such an absolutist case was not made to begin with?
A woman is always a woman regardless of her pregnancy status
Correct.
and she is never a baby farm regardless of her pregnancy status.
Except if the prolifers make her one through their policies.
She did. She's pregnant, remember?
That is not the same as comitting your bodily resource unless she agrees to the use.
There is a developing child inside her that she and her partner are responsible for creating.
There is tissue that eventually COULD BECOME a child. The way you present it is just more revisionist linguistics.
This getting ridiculous. It's a baby if I want it to be, it's a tumor if I don't
Nope. It never is a baby. Rather, people may feel of characterice it that wat, but that doesn't mean reality.
It's a person if I hit my brake, it's a speedbump if I don't.
Nope, your claim is false. They are both persons.
It's someone's life if I want it to be, it's my own bodily waste if I don't.
Emotional claptrap distortion.
It's going to be a doctor someday, it's going to be in a plastic baggy someday.
Nah, it's going to be the next Stalin someday.
No one is afforded that much choice in this world. Not women not men. What is, is what is, not what you choose for it to be.
It is a stranger, or it is a dying kidney patient. YOU get to chose that, certainly. YOU get to chose whether you want to donate your kidney or not. So drop that dishonest holier-than-thou silliness. Selfrighteous moralists just shows themselves to be hypocrites.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Sex is a choice and so is pregnancy,
In this context, no it isn't. Once the sex is done, there is little or no control about whether a pregnancy will occur or not. The man or women have no post-sex influence on what the sperm or egg does, other than EC.

How does someone continue being responsible by terminating a pregnancy?
By continue to to deal with the situation themselves.
If you are responsile enough, this situation is never one you'll come in contact with.
Not necessarily. The CDC data shows 58% of abortions being to women where the couple has been using contraception.
If you fail to do so, the way to start being responsible is to have the child.
No it isn't. You "because I say so" moralistically judgemental postulation is in no way a fact. The way to start being responsible is to deal with the situation themselves instead of leaving it for others to have to deal with.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I'm glad you know this information. Therefore, when you use contraceptives, you will know the potential consequences. Look on the bright side: you get to sue the implant company!

Yes: fate might be a bastard. Doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and go "Oh dear, I had bad luck, what's a pity and it's all my fault. Time to breed, then."
 
steen said:
You are saying that they are not qualified to make decisions about their own bodies. That is patronizing, controlling and demeaning.

When did I say, "Women aren't qualified to make decisions like that. They have small brains." I don't recall ever saying anything like that.

Yes, I am sure this comes as a surprise to you, as we only rarely see PL ever having given the woman a thought.

I don't know what you're getting at here.

Not as long as she herself are allowed the choice. But when you seek to restrict her access to abortion, then she becomes just that.

There are condoms, pills, and hundreds of other contraceptives in the works. How can you say she wasn't allowed a choice?

Correct. Bit then nobody ever made that claim.
Then isn't it good that such an absolutist case was not made to begin with?

You made the claim that without abortion rights a woman is a baby factory. I think that's fairly absolutists.

That is not the same as comitting your bodily resource unless she agrees to the use.

Where does birth control come in to your argument? It's as if steps can only be taken post-conception. Steps should be taken before sex. That's when you decide whether or not you want to commit your bodily resources.

There is tissue that eventually COULD BECOME a child. The way you present it is just more revisionist linguistics.

There is tissue that in most probability WOULD become a child. I just looked for miscarriage rates. The highest I heard quoted was 15% of all pregnancies. That's an 85% chance this "tissue" WILL become a child.

Nope, your claim is false. They are both persons.

Just as the potential life of a child is a constant rather than a biological waste when one decides to think of it that way.

Emotional claptrap distortion.

It's not something I made up. It came out of your mouth.

Nah, it's going to be the next Stalin someday.

?

It is a stranger, or it is a dying kidney patient. YOU get to chose that, certainly. YOU get to chose whether you want to donate your kidney or not. So drop that dishonest holier-than-thou silliness. Selfrighteous moralists just shows themselves to be hypocrites.

You don't get to choose that. A dying kidney patient is a dying kidney patient whether I know him or not.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I think an abortion is a decision that very few should have to make. Sex is a choice and so is pregnancy, but those are closely related. Responsibility determines how closely related those are.

I think that it IS a decision that a few have to make. I think that BAD PARENTING is the real reason behind abortion in the first place. But since there are so many bad parents we should be providing abortions (or REQUIRING them) for the people stupid enough to have gotten themselves into the mess in the first place.



How does someone continue being responsible by terminating a pregnancy? If you are responsile enough, this situation is never one you'll come in contact with. If you fail to do so, the way to start being responsible is to have the child.


It means that we won't have THEM for parents, and OTHERS looking after the kids. And responsible to the planet for not bringing yet ANOTHER unwanted, unhappy CONSUMER on to it.
 
sissy-boy said:
I think that it IS a decision that a few have to make. I think that BAD PARENTING is the real reason behind abortion in the first place. But since there are so many bad parents we should be providing abortions (or REQUIRING them) for the people stupid enough to have gotten themselves into the mess in the first place.

It means that we won't have THEM for parents, and OTHERS looking after the kids. And responsible to the planet for not bringing yet ANOTHER unwanted, unhappy CONSUMER on to it.

I think this is so far out that I don't have to respond to it.
 
Actually, it makes sense, in a misanthropic sort of way. I know a 19-year-old who had an unplanned baby and... ugh, I despair for that child. She's more interested in going to bars than looking after her little daughter, she cheated on her baby's father, has no education whatsoever and wouldn't know morality if it smacked her in the face.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
When did I say, "Women aren't qualified to make decisions like that. They have small brains." I don't recall ever saying anything like that.
You are saying that they should not be allowed to decide whether to have an abortion or not.
There are condoms, pills, and hundreds of other contraceptives in the works. How can you say she wasn't allowed a choice?
58% of abortions are to couples who used contraception. 25% of abortions are to married women.
Where does birth control come in to your argument? It's as if steps can only be taken post-conception. Steps should be taken before sex. That's when you decide whether or not you want to commit your bodily resources.
Nope, choices are made before and aftre. Having sex is not a pregnancy decision, though.
There is tissue that in most probability WOULD become a child. I just looked for miscarriage rates. The highest I heard quoted was 15% of all pregnancies. That's an 85% chance this "tissue" WILL become a child.
Well, about 75% of all zygotes never implant, or fail within days.
You don't get to choose that. A dying kidney patient is a dying kidney patient whether I know him or not.
And a Fetus is a Fetus whether you know it or not. Now, why would they have the right to use a person's bodily resources against that person's will?
 
steen said:
You are saying that they should not be allowed to decide whether to have an abortion or not.

No one should. A friend of mine actually said he like the idea of a medical ethics board making the decision. I hadn't thought about it, but I figure I'd throw it out there.

58% of abortions are to couples who used contraception. 25% of abortions are to married women.

You mentioned a CDC report. Can I see it?

Nope, choices are made before and aftre. Having sex is not a pregnancy decision, though.

Having unprotected sex might as well be don't you think?

Well, about 75% of all zygotes never implant, or fail within days.

Therefore, if he implants, he beat the odds and deserves chance!

And a Fetus is a Fetus whether you know it or not. Now, why would they have the right to use a person's bodily resources against that person's will?

Because the Fetus is because of that person and her bodily resources.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
No one should.
Exactly. As only women get pregnnat, you have decided that they aren't OK to make decisions about the use of their bodily resources like everybody else are. That IS demeaning and patronizing to women.
You mentioned a CDC report. Can I see it?
There are several. CDC publishes an annyal "Abortion Surveillance." The data I have is from the 1997 year, which is the last one where they provided those numbers (in a study referenced in foot notes:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4911a1.htm

And here is the latest one:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm
Having unprotected sex might as well be don't you think?
Nope, having unprotected sex is no more a pregnancy decision or consent to pregnancy than smoking is a lung cancer decision or the consent to lung cancer.

Voluntary actions with a risk factor is not the same as consent to the risk outcome.
Therefore, if he implants, he beat the odds and deserves chance!
Why? And why at the expense of the woman's right to bodily autonomy? Again, why does the embryo have more "right to life" than a kidney patient?
Because the Fetus is because of that person and her bodily resources.
Ah, so merely because the woman had sex, the fetus or embryo has the right to her bodily resources? because she "caused" its existence? Does a lung tumor then have a right to life? Or if we are the only ones sharing a blood type, and you cut my arm off, can you be FORCED to give me blood?
 
steen said:
Exactly. As only women get pregnnat, you have decided that they aren't OK to make decisions about the use of their bodily resources like everybody else are. That IS demeaning and patronizing to women.

No, I really don't think it is. I never said that they couldn't make that decision. I'm saying they shouldn't.

There are several. CDC publishes an annyal "Abortion Surveillance." The data I have is from the 1997 year, which is the last one where they provided those numbers (in a study referenced in foot notes:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4911a1.htm

And here is the latest one:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

These are the same sources we went over earlier. I think we came to the conclusion of a more effecient sexual eduction in schools?

Nope, having unprotected sex is no more a pregnancy decision or consent to pregnancy than smoking is a lung cancer decision or the consent to lung cancer. Voluntary actions with a risk factor is not the same as consent to the risk outcome.

How many ways are there to get pregnant?
What is the most common cause of pregnancy?

How many ways are there to get lung cancer?
What is the most common cause of lung cancer?

Why? And why at the expense of the woman's right to bodily autonomy? Again, why does the embryo have more "right to life" than a kidney patient?

The doctor/hospital will do everything within their power to see that that man survives, correct?

Ah, so merely because the woman had sex, the fetus or embryo has the right to her bodily resources? because she "caused" its existence? Does a lung tumor then have a right to life?

Given time what will a lung tumor do to a woman? Kill her?

Given time what will an embryo do to a woman?

Or if we are the only ones sharing a blood type, and you cut my arm off, can you be FORCED to give me blood?

...What?!?
 
vauge said:
Men should equally have a choice.


ahhh...not until men can be forcefully hooked up to an IV to sustain life for 9 months with the possibility of injury or even Death..
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
She did. She's pregnant, remember?


.


right,failures of contraception and rape never occur, either :roll:
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I think this is so far out that I don't have to respond to it.


I'm only practicing my own church's ONLY commandment: Thou Shalt Not Procreate! Church members who become pregnant are REQUIRED to have an abortion, so we don't breed; quite simple. If the pregnant church member refuses to have an abortion, they are forcibly excommunicated. If more church's practiced mandatory abortion the planet would be MUCH better off. Overpopulation is the NUMBER ONE tradgedy on the planet yet it is nearly ignored. It's an OUTRAGE!
 
Elektra said:
right,failures of contraception and rape never occur, either :roll:

Failures of contraceptives? It happens, so first off let me say that we need better sexual education. It's a first step. How to be safe and how to use contraceptives with "perfect use" rather than "typical use." Other than that, when you have sex, you know the potential consequences of your actions: Pregnancy

Rape? If a woman finds herself pregnant in the aftermath of such a traumatic situation, she should be able to decide whether or not follow through with the pregnancy for the sake of her mental and emotional health.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Failures of contraceptives? It happens, so first off let me say that we need better sexual education. It's a first step. How to be safe and how to use contraceptives with "perfect use" rather than "typical use." Other than that, when you have sex, you know the potential consequences of your actions: Pregnancy

Rape? If a woman finds herself pregnant in the aftermath of such a traumatic situation, she should be able to decide whether or not follow through with the pregnancy for the sake of her mental and emotional health.





That may be true for YOU, but *I* certainly don't have to worry about pregnancy!! This is EXACTLY why we should be promoting homosexuality as a way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

But I think if we also taught masturbation and promoted sodomy this wouldn't be an issue either. The fact of the matter is that kids are going to have sex no matter what those ridiculous 'abstinence' classes teach -- it is part of human nature and healthy curiosity. Besides, women love anal & oral sex too and men LOVE it. If the sex ed classes had graphic photos of people enjoying sodomy more people would want to consider sodomy for themselves.

Down with pregancy, UP with SODOMY!!
 
sissy-boy said:

That may be true for YOU, but *I* certainly don't have to worry about pregnancy!! This is EXACTLY why we should be promoting homosexuality as a way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I see nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I don't see it as a lifestyle that should be promoted. Out of curiosity is homosexuality a choice in your eyes.

But I think if we also taught masturbation and promoted sodomy this wouldn't be an issue either. The fact of the matter is that kids are going to have sex no matter what those ridiculous 'abstinence' classes teach -- it is part of human nature and healthy curiosity. Besides, women love anal & oral sex too and men LOVE it. If the sex ed classes had graphic photos of people enjoying sodomy more people would want to consider sodomy for themselves.

Down with pregancy, UP with SODOMY!!

When I read your previous posts I assumed there was a sardonic and humorous tone? I thought it was very humorous and I actually laughed at it. Am I right to laugh or are you really serious?

I do agree with you when you say attraction and sexuality is a part of human nature. That being said, you seem to be advocating promiscuity which is dangerous. Sexuality is natural, but it's something that comes(shut up, it wasn't intended) with responsibility much like the ability to procreate. That kind of responsibility should be taught in schools. Not sodomy. There's nothing necessarily wrong(in my eyes) with sodomy, but I think it's crossing the line to encourage such an act. Especially in public schools.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I see nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I don't see it as a lifestyle that should be promoted. Out of curiosity is homosexuality a choice in your eyes.



I think that in some cases it is a choice. It certainly is for me at this point in my life, though I couldn't imagine doing something as unnatural as having sex with a woman (ICK!). But I see homosexuality as more of a 'blessing' as anything else. I think the vast majority of homosexuals seek the same sex due to genetics rather than any other cause, but I do think there are a handful of people who DO actually choose to be queer -- but VERY rare cases -- which would mean that really they are only bisexual. If a person can 'CHOOSE' to be with either sex, they are clearly BIsexual, not homosexual. A homosexual has no ability to simply CHOOSE who they are naturally attracted to.



When I read your previous posts I assumed there was a sardonic and humorous tone? I thought it was very humorous and I actually laughed at it. Am I right to laugh or are you really serious?

I'm half serious. I DO believe that homosexuality and sodomy should actually be promoted and embraced in today's society. It would help eliminate much of the hatred and intolerance taken by so many religious persons. Religion is a disease.

I do agree with you when you say attraction and sexuality is a part of human nature. That being said, you seem to be advocating promiscuity which is dangerous. Sexuality is natural, but it's something that comes(shut up, it wasn't intended) with responsibility much like the ability to procreate. That kind of responsibility should be taught in schools. Not sodomy. There's nothing necessarily wrong(in my eyes) with sodomy, but I think it's crossing the line to encourage such an act. Especially in public schools.

Promiscuity is not dangerous, UNSAFE promiscuity is -- and mixing sex with drugs. Hedonism is what I advocate and only because it is practicing the virtue of being true to our real nature. When a person denies themselves of such natural compulsions they are actually being incredibly BLASPHEMOUS. I don't understand how something as sick as abstinence can be healthy emotionally OR physically. It ALWAYS leads to mental disorders and endemic illness and disease.
 
sissy-boy said:
I think that in some cases it is a choice. It certainly is for me at this point in my life, though I couldn't imagine doing something as unnatural as having sex with a woman (ICK!). But I see homosexuality as more of a 'blessing' as anything else. I think the vast majority of homosexuals seek the same sex due to genetics rather than any other cause, but I do think there are a handful of people who DO actually choose to be queer -- but VERY rare cases -- which would mean that really they are only bisexual. If a person can 'CHOOSE' to be with either sex, they are clearly BIsexual, not homosexual. A homosexual has no ability to simply CHOOSE who they are naturally attracted to.

How is intercourse with a woman unnatural? Or are you speaking from your relative perspective?

sissy-boy said:
I'm half serious. I DO believe that homosexuality and sodomy should actually be promoted and embraced in today's society. It would help eliminate much of the hatred and intolerance taken by so many religious persons. Religion is a disease.

Promoting homosexuality wouldn't exactly neutralize the "hatred and intolerace" expressed by some religious people. Promoting homosexuality would be just that: Promoting it.

sissy-boy said:
Promiscuity is not dangerous, UNSAFE promiscuity is -- and mixing sex with drugs. Hedonism is what I advocate and only because it is practicing the virtue of being true to our real nature. When a person denies themselves of such natural compulsions they are actually being incredibly BLASPHEMOUS. I don't understand how something as sick as abstinence can be healthy emotionally OR physically. It ALWAYS leads to mental disorders and endemic illness and disease.

Always? That's not true. Gandhi was celibate for some 40 years. He's a genius. While I do not embrace celibacy, I will say this: People need connections, relationships, attatchment, etc. These types of bonds are most commonly expressed physically. Promiscuity is not healthy. It is, as I see it, destructive mentally and, above all, destructive emotionally.
 
What's your definition of promiscuity, though?
 
vergiss said:
What's your definition of promiscuity, though?

That's a great question haha.

Not necessarily sex without attachment, but habitual sex without attatchment. Or maybe just simply irresponsible sexual activity. I don't know. I guess I haven't exactly got that nailed down.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
How is intercourse with a woman unnatural? Or are you speaking from your relative perspective?


I'm queer, so for me to have sex with a woman, as it would be with all gay men, is unnatural. Just as it would be for a lesbian to have sex with a man.


Promoting homosexuality wouldn't exactly neutralize the "hatred and intolerace" expressed by some religious people. Promoting homosexuality would be just that: Promoting it.


I never said it would. But the sooner we started embracing it as a culture, the sooner the intolerance would dissolve. And it HAS been dissolving throughout the world's history. The only places that it is NOT going away are in places of theocratic rule, like the middle east and right wing America -- just another example of how closely the Republican party is like the TALIBAN.


Always? That's not true. Gandhi was celibate for some 40 years. He's a genius. While I do not embrace celibacy, I will say this: People need connections, relationships, attatchment, etc. These types of bonds are most commonly expressed physically. Promiscuity is not healthy. It is, as I see it, destructive mentally and, above all, destructive emotionally.


Now 40 years is not ALWAYS is it? He had sex often as a young man -- and his spiritual and political quest took over, he was not a sexually repressed man. Celibacy doens't ALWAYS mean sexual repression -- though his case is quite rare.
 
sissy-boy said:
I'm queer, so for me to have sex with a woman, as it would be with all gay men, is unnatural. Just as it would be for a lesbian to have sex with a man.

I think your using the wrong word when use "unnatural," but that is irrelevant.

I never said it would. But the sooner we started embracing it as a culture, the sooner the intolerance would dissolve. And it HAS been dissolving throughout the world's history. The only places that it is NOT going away are in places of theocratic rule, like the middle east and right wing America -- just another example of how closely the Republican party is like the TALIBAN.

Homosexuality is something that should not be demonized any more than it should be promoted. The Republican Party and the Taliban do not resemble one another enough to use the word "closely." That's not a very good comparison.

Now 40 years is not ALWAYS is it? He had sex often as a young man -- and his spiritual and political quest took over, he was not a sexually repressed man. Celibacy doens't ALWAYS mean sexual repression -- though his case is quite rare.

Gandhi goes over sexuality and celibacy the way he sees it in his autobiography. I don't know if you read it, but I don't think it's accurate to say he had sex "often."
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Promiscuity is not healthy. It is, as I see it, destructive mentally and, above all, destructive emotionally.

I hope you're just speaking for yourself.
 
steen said:
Why? And why at the expense of the woman's right to bodily autonomy? Again, why does the embryo have more "right to life" than a kidney patient?
Ah, so merely because the woman had sex, the fetus or embryo has the right to her bodily resources? because she "caused" its existence? Does a lung tumor then have a right to life? Or if we are the only ones sharing a blood type, and you cut my arm off, can you be FORCED to give me blood?


It is just another instrument to control women.I yet have to see fathers to be forced to donate kidneys or liver tissue to their offspring.
 
Back
Top Bottom