Abortion

[PocketZeven]

Why can't I compare those things, which were, if you remember, said in response to you stating that you don't see the benefit of finding out if foetuses feel pain.

Why should foetal pain (if it exists) in your mind be considered differently to those examples I presented?

Because comparing those is suggesting the same intent.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Because comparing those is suggesting the same intent.

Intent? I don't follow..

 

[PocketZeven]

Intent? I don't follow..

Killing animals are for food and executing prisoners are punishment. Both are also not always done "humanely as you seem to suggest.

Comparing abortion with these 2 suggests that the intent of abortion is either for food or punishment. The people that are pro-choice do not assume a fetus is already a "human".

 

[HenrySwanson]

Killing animals are for food and executing prisoners are punishment. Both are also not always done "humanely as you seem to suggest.

Comparing abortion with these 2 suggests that the intent of abortion is either for food or punishment. The people that are pro-choice do not assume a fetus is already a "human".

And killing foetuses is usually due to convenience. The intent doesn't really matter in this discussion when we are talking about the taking of a life whether foetal, adult or animal and how this should (or shouldn't) be done as humanely as possible

 

[Danoff]

And killing foetuses is usually due to convenience.

That's a bit of an odd choice of words. Someone doesn't want to co-opt their body, and risk injury or death, and then subscribe to the enormous responsibility of caring for a child, with the knowledge that the child health's could ultimately require that responsibility to last for the rest of the parent's life, and consume any and all resources, and that's convenience?

Having a child is literally risking your entire life.

 

[TexRex]

That's a bit of an odd choice of words.

Yet spot on for the "pro-life" crowd.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So you're saying the main reason for abortion is to avert illness and/or death ....?

 

[Danoff]

So you're saying the main reason for abortion is to avert illness and/or death ....?

The main reason for abortion is because someone (at least partially) understands the risks and responsibilities involved with creating a child and doesn't want to take them.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The main reason for abortion is because someone (at least partially) understands the risks and responsibilities involved with creating a child and doesn't want to take them.

I'd say raising instead of creating. After all, how many women who do abort then go onto have (or have already had) pregnancies carried to term which would still have had the same risks. And isn't that by definition then out of convenience. This is obviously discounting the fewer amount of abortions carried out when there is a clear and present danger to the mothers health.

 

[Danoff]

I'd say raising instead of creating. After all, how many women who do abort then go onto have (or have already had) pregnancies carried to term which would still have had the same risks. And isn't that by definition then out of convenience. This is obviously discounting the fewer amount of abortions carried out when there is a clear and present danger to the mothers health.

Funny thing, peoples' assessment of risk and responsibilities changes with age and life situation. An unmarried woman at age 21 might view all of the above prospects quite differently than the same woman, married, and with career established, at age 31. The ability to handle the risks, and willingness to do so, evolves with the person. Medical risk from pregnancy can change too. For example, someone who has had a child might realize that the risk of injury or death is higher for them than most, and then might decide not to do it again. Alternatively, someone might realize that the risk of injury or death is lower for them than previously assumed, and go on to get pregnant and carry to term after having previously aborted.

It turns out that the personal assessment of risk and responsibility (of carrying, birthing, and raising the child) is a personal assessment, and can change with personal circumstances.

 

[baldgye]

So you're saying the main reason for abortion is to avert illness and/or death ....?

The main reason for legal abortion is to give a sentient choice over their own body and life. A fetus isn't sentient and has no rights. The reasons for an abortion other than allowing a sentient being choice over it's own body are by enlarge, irrelevant.

The subject of fetus's feeling pain is massively complex and given your pre-existing misunderstanding of science I would be careful before prescribing what action should be taken when abortions are carried out.

 

[mirial]

The main reason for legal abortion is to give a sentient choice over their own body and life. A fetus isn't sentient and has no rights. The reasons for an abortion other than allowing a sentient being choice over it's own body are by enlarge, irrelevant.

The subject of fetus's feeling pain is massively complex and given your pre-existing misunderstanding of science I would be careful before prescribing what action should be taken when abortions are carried out.

Perhaps the way things used to be before sexual lawlessness became normalised was better for all longer term.

 

[Imari]

I'd say raising instead of creating. After all, how many women who do abort then go onto have (or have already had) pregnancies carried to term which would still have had the same risks.

It's almost like people are willing to take different risks at different times of their lives or something. But that's just silly, no one is that sensible. If it's good for you when you're 35 clearly it's also good for you when you're 16.

 

[baldgye]

...sexual lawlessness...

is this a dog whistle for 'women's rights'?

 

[Famine]

Perhaps the way things used to be before sexual lawlessness became normalised was better for all longer term.

Yeah, I mean if we hadn't stupidly allowed women to have agency over their own bodies, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion about allowing women to have agency over their own bodies.

 

[TexRex]

Perhaps the way things used to be before sexual lawlessness became normalised was better for all longer term.

*snort*

Are you just channeling Helen Lovejoy?

 

[mirial]

is this a dog whistle for 'women's rights'?

No. It's a dog whistle for a totally broken system when we had a good one before which enabled society to be much more civilised whether you were religious or not. Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Men first and foremost should be disciplined, but if women being the gatekeepers of sex are being encouraged to be sluts by the system, then all rules go out the window and nobody wins long-term.

*snort*

Are you just channeling Helen Lovejoy?

No.

 

[TexRex]

Found the prude.

 

[baldgye]

It's a dog whistle for a totally broken system...

System seems fine mate, women can have safe abortions and live their lives as they choose.

 

[TenEightyOne]

if women being the gatekeepers of sex are being encouraged to be sluts by the system

"Slut" sounds like a term that would primarily exist in the male gaze. Surely women can have as much agency as men without being judged? Often when I read a comment about a woman being a hoe, or a slut, or "easy", or whatever, it often appears that it's a male writer who simply isn't getting any.

 

[mirial]

Found the prude.

No, it's understanding the system is back to front and has nothing to do with prudishness. In fact, by the law of averages, left-leaning men stand to benefit much more from a system that doesn't encourage promiscuity because the women they encounter aren't likely to be able to compare them with dozens of other men they have had sexual experiences with.

System seems fine mate, women can have safe abortions and live their lives as they choose.

No mate. The emotional damage of that, on top of a history of promiscuity does damage and either leaves women broken or with a very hard heart. Not good for a liberal, progressive society.......

"Slut" sounds like a term that would primarily exist in the male gaze. Surely women can have as much agency as men without being judged? Often when I read a comment about a woman being a hoe, or a slut, or "easy", or whatever, it often appears that it's a male writer who simply isn't getting any.

Slut; it's the lack of moral guidance or how to present oneself from anywhere rather than language used because the writer may be an incel. Unfortunately it's the women themselves who don't know any different because society has deliberately brought out the worst in them......women covered in tattoos being a further example of them being unaware simply because they make women look so ugly.

 

[baldgye]

No mate. The emotional damage of that, on top of a history of promiscuity does damage and either leaves women broken or with a very hard heart. Not good for a liberal, progressive society.......

What the **** you chatting mukka?

In modern society even in the UK, women have more freedom, more rights and more wealth than ever before. How the **** can that leave them broken or heavy heart?

Shall we take away all your rights (even the right to earn an income and own property) and see if it makes you whole again?

No, it's understanding the system is back to front and has nothing to do with prudishness. In fact, by the law of averages, left-leaning men stand to benefit much more from a system that doesn't encourage promiscuity because the women they encounter aren't likely to be able to compare them with dozens of other men they have had sexual experiences with.

TLDR: I know nothing about women

 

[PocketZeven]

And killing foetuses is usually due to convenience. The intent doesn't really matter in this discussion when we are talking about the taking of a life whether foetal, adult or animal and how this should (or shouldn't) be done as humanely as possible

It does when you directly compare these. You litterally compared humanely abortion with humanely killing of animals and humanely execution of criminals. The intent does matter in these examples.

I have experienced an abortion with an ex. So the subject is personal. Try to compare apples as much as possible with apples. Animals and criminals are living beings. A foetus is a fertilized egg.

 

[baldgye]

...women covered in tattoos being a further example of them being unaware simply because they make women look so ugly.

And of course women's only function is to appear attractive... and only attractive to you...

 

[mirial]

And of course women's only function is to appear attractive... and only attractive to you...

What the **** you chatting mukka?

In modern society even in the UK, women have more freedom, more rights and more wealth than ever before. How the **** can that leave them broken or heavy heart?

The rights and freedoms won't matter a damn to the average women who ends up childless at age 40. I've met countless women in their thirties who will most likely end up childless because they won't meet someone who was comparable to some one-night stand, or a super hero they met in their prime.

The sexual freedom normalised by the system whilst in their prime catches up on them by the time they want to settle down and then manifests itself in long term relationships where there is a formal commitment such as having a child together or marriage. This is most likely why there is so much marriage break up now and studies have proven this (but they don't want you to know that). Men aren't exempt from damage either, except men will never get the sense of being 'used' in a sexual encounter; Women: X3 to get the real number of partners, Men / 3 to get the real number of partners.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, it's understanding the system is back to front and has nothing to do with prudishness. In fact, by the law of averages, left-leaning men stand to benefit much more from a system that doesn't encourage promiscuity because the women they encounter aren't likely to be able to compare them with dozens of other men they have had sexual experiences with.

You seem very worried about a "system", what's wrong with people choosing their own way?

No mate. The emotional damage of that, on top of a history of promiscuity does damage and either leaves women broken or with a very hard heart.

No, no no no, that's a crock. I was (arguably) promiscuous in my youth, do you think I'd be damaged somehow? I was having the time of my bloody life as it happens.

Slut; it's the lack of moral guidance

Moral guidance? From this "system" you're proposing? Who gives this guidance, and what business is it of theirs?

Unfortunately it's the women themselves who don't know any different

Bless them, all they wanted was a new ironing board cover and some valium. I mean seriously... you think women can't enjoy casual sex without male permission? You've got a bit to learn about the world, imo.

women covered in tattoos being a further example of them being unaware simply because they make women look so ugly.

I'm sure plenty of those women would say it's none of your **** **** **** business, and that's because it isn't. Do you talk to/about people like this in real life? I mean... you can't... surely?

I've met countless women in their thirties who will most likely end up childless because they won't meet someone who was comparable to some one-night stand, or a super hero they met in their prime.

Why is that your business, or is this something to do with the rule "system" you were talking about?

The sexual freedom normalised by the system

There is no system

This is most likely why there is so much marriage break up now and studies have proven this (but they don't want you to know that)

Source required.

Men aren't exempt from damage either, except men will never get the sense of being 'used' in a sexual encounter

If somebody said that to me in real life I'd think they were either not old enough or sexually experienced enough to lecture anybody. Of course men can feel used - the only world where that doesn't happen is 1950s comic books. Life isn't like that.

Women: X3 to get the real number of partners, Men / 3 to get the real number of partners.

Source required for your made-up internet numbers.

 

[Joey D]

This is starting to sound awfull incelly/red pilly.

 

[TexRex]

No, it's understanding the system is back to front and has nothing to do with prudishness. In fact, by the law of averages, left-leaning men stand to benefit much more from a system that doesn't encourage promiscuity because the women they encounter aren't likely to be able to compare them with dozens of other men they have had sexual experiences with.



No mate. The emotional damage of that, on top of a history of promiscuity does damage and either leaves women broken or with a very hard heart. Not good for a liberal, progressive society.......



Slut; it's the lack of moral guidance or how to present oneself from anywhere rather than language used because the writer may be an incel. Unfortunately it's the women themselves who don't know any different because society has deliberately brought out the worst in them......women covered in tattoos being a further example of them being unaware simply because they make women look so ugly.

Heh.

This is starting to sound awfull incelly/red pilly.

MGTOWFTWOMGLMAO

 

[baldgye]

The rights and freedoms won't matter a damn to the average women who ends up childless at age 40. I've met countless women in their thirties who will most likely end up childless because they won't meet someone who was comparable to some one-night stand, or a super hero they met in their prime.

Where do you live, is it Earth!?

Spoiler

Not every woman wants children...

The sexual freedom normalised by the system whilst in their prime catches up on them by the time they want to settle down and then manifests itself in long term relationships where there is a formal commitment such as having a child together or marriage.

****, I hope I'm not alive when it catches up to men...

(but they don't want you to know that).

Wait... not.. the Lizard People again!!

Men aren't exempt from damage either, except men will never get the sense of being 'used' in a sexual encounter; Women: X3 to get the real number of partners, Men / 3 to get the real number of partners.

Finally, we've gotten to the science.

Spoiler

Have you ever had sex?
You do realise, that sex, for both men and women, is more than just hammering home those 2 inches... right? That sex scene in the Inbetweeners, wasn't an instruction guide... I don't think you know or have spoken to any women, bar women in your family... maybe?

Women can and should (and can and do) sleep with who they want. They don't need some white knight coming to save their virginity... in the same way a bloke can sleep with who he wants (of what ever gender)... no human rates the person they want to settle down with on a scoring system based on one night stand performances.

 

[Imari]

No, it's understanding the system is back to front and has nothing to do with prudishness. In fact, by the law of averages, left-leaning men stand to benefit much more from a system that doesn't encourage promiscuity because the women they encounter aren't likely to be able to compare them with dozens of other men they have had sexual experiences with.

Why would left-leaning men benefit from not being compared to other men that a woman may have had sex with? Why would that benefit any man?

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of a sexually experienced woman who knows what she likes and what other men like is pretty attractive. Having sex with only one or two people your whole life pretty much guarantees that you'll never experience the full breadth of what is available, and that you'll never really be very good at it. Practice makes perfect, and you don't become a great racing driver simply by doing laps of Laguna Seca for forty years.

...women covered in tattoos being a further example of them being unaware simply because they make women look so ugly.

Is this one of those times where you're mistaking your personal opinion for fact? Regardless, a tattoo is about what the person wearing it thinks of it. If a woman (or a man) likes having something drawn on their body, I don't see why they should give two tugs of a dead dogs 🤬 what you think about it.

The rights and freedoms won't matter a damn to the average women who ends up childless at age 40.

Why not? Is having a child the only value that a woman's life can have?