The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So, just to be explicitly clear, you believe in complete abstinence until a woman is ready for a child? I just want to hear you say those exact words.
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
So, just to be explicitly clear, you believe in complete abstinence until a woman is ready for a child? I just want to hear you say those exact words.
IMO, it really boils down to these 3 qs:
Do you believe sex bears responsibility?
Do you believe a fetus is a living being with rights to live?
Do you believe the woman has complete say in if she gives birth, even if it trumps qs 1 and 2?
For number 1, if you say yes then "punishing" someone for having sex is ok since they should take responsibility. Of course this is only for consensual sex. Currently, males do get punished if pregnancy occurs financially depending on the woman's choice.
For number 2, if you say yes then things get quite simple. It doesn't matter how the baby is created, once it's there it is everyone's duty to make sure it lives. The heinous nature of rape matters not if you truly believe the answer is yes. This is the question that usually gets glossed over by pro choicers IMO, since many think that "obviously" it's not the same as a human life.
Number 3 is where things get complex since it can conflict with 1 and 2. It also causes male frustration since the woman ultimately decides if he will have a child or not, and carry future responsibility or not.
This debate will never end because you will never find agreement amongst these questions. Due to that, it seems like giving the choice to the female is the least offensive choice, since no belief is forced on anyone. Although, people that say yes to number 2 will die fighting this since they believe society is allowing murder
Oh man, I didn't realise The Pope posted on GAF.
Hey Duffyside/Pope, what's God's favourite videogame? I reckon it's Sonic & Knuckles.
Well, technically wouldn't it be just some abstinence, not complete? This isn't semantics, either. My platform would be "Duffyside 2016: More Oral for Everyone. You're Welcome." Also, it's important to note that this isn't just about women. I hold men equally responsible for the creation of life and trust me, I've let the ones in my life know it.
And, again, to not be accused of dodging, I have friends and people I respect who believe in not having sex of any kind outside of marriage. I don't think they're inhuman lunatics.
What year is it? Seriously. Do you believe masturbation leads to blindness too?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Hm, I dont quite get this comment
les papillons sexuels
Banned
technically god put it there... And considering we have freedom from religion i think in this scenario if the girls wants to get rid of what god did through his plan, she has every right to get rid of it.
DR2K
Banned
Devolution
Member
What's hilarious is that the majority of conceptions even without intervention don't make it to term. Our bodies are more likely to reject eggs, embryos, etc due to foreseen problems but do it ourselves and people have a shitfit.
I find the belief that we should abstain from sexual intercourse until the church arbitrarily decides its ok to be archaic and strange.
To add, sex is a natural biological function. There's a small subset of the population that willfully suppresses it well into adulthood, but that's not a good prescription for a healthy society.
Didnt seem like Duffy was saying abstinence was the only way. More so, abstain if you arent willing to take responsibility for possible pregnancy. Still an idealistic view, but not as extreme as some of you are making it sound. Especially since birth control will reduce that % chance of pregnancy so low its barely worth debating
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
I'm super glad I don't live in America, tbh.
And yes, Billie. I am echoing the 'holy shit you people' sentiment pretty hard from my end, too.
Devolution
Member
Yeah it's pretty scary =/.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Me too. So glad to be 'useless' in this regard, tbh. To have another woman as a significant other is delightful 
.
.What really angers me about this is that either side can't seem to appreciate a middle ground.
I think an abortion for "no reason" is incredibly wrong and you should feel ashamed if you even contemplate it, however I don't think it should be illegal. That would make things worse unfortunately.
I think an abortion for "no reason" is incredibly wrong and you should feel ashamed if you even contemplate it, however I don't think it should be illegal. That would make things worse unfortunately.
Me too. So glad to be 'useless' in this regard, tbh. To have another woman as a significant other is delightful
I can't wait for that!
As soon as I'm pretty >_> ...
Devolution
Member
If you know you have a hereditary disease, you know there is a risk that your child may have it, then you are causing the risky situation by having a child. If you choose to have a child, then you assume the risk of disease to that child. If you choose not to have any children, there is a 0% chance that your offspring will get that disease. It's the same thing exact argument used for abstinence. Hole #1 invalid.
This invalidates nothing. You'd make a clause in the law prohibiting organ/body donation at the point of likely death for the donor. You're not even providing an argument against anything I've said, I don't know what you were trying to prove with this one. Perhaps you care to actually describe how this invalidates anything I've said?
Nonsensical Hole #2 probably invalid
The fetus takes nutrients, takes rest, causes stress, takes away comfort, takes chemical energy in the excess amount of energy required to carry that weight around, amongst a bunch of other things. As far as irrevocable bodily changes, it sounds like you haven't been in close contact with a mother before. Why don't you ask my ex-girlfriend if she'll get her skin elasticity back, her stretch marks automatically removed, of if her c-section scar will heal? There's also breast sagging, vaginal loosening, permanent hair-thinning, permanent pelvic and spinal structural changes, and more. Are all these conditions livable? Yes. But so are the conditions I've put forth of donating bodily fluids and some non-vital organs. Whoopsadaisy, Hole #3 invalid.
You're going to have to do much better than that, man. I'm still waiting.
My definition of "no reason" is an otherwise healthy child with no real risk to the mother is born.
If you utilize birth control and condoms the risk of pregnancy is so infinitesimally small it should be a non issue.
It's to the point now that you choose to become pregnant...take some precautions to avoid having to kill a child.
Devolution
Member
Not wanting to be pregnant is a reason. Sorry you don't like it. You don't however get to claim "it's not a reason."
Yeah.....that's not a valid reason.
If you didn't want to be pregnant you would have taken precautions to not be pregnant. It's really not hard and has and amazing success rate.
Devolution
Member
And?
You wouldn't have to undergo the process either if you would have taken the most basic of precautions.
Like not having heterosexual intercourse?
No, like taking birth control and using condoms......not sure where this is going over your head here.
Devolution
Member
Oh those precautions are 100%? Women who have sex deserve to be saddled with pregnancy? Children should be a punishment rather than a blessing? People like you don't get to take the moral high ground on this one sorry.
What's going over my head? That you think women are nothing but birthing canals?
I'm sure that you'd like to have the choice of what to do with your own body if you couldget pregnant. Certainly that would be better than having other people decide for you while hoping that you agree with their reasoning?
Infinitesimally small, huh?
The most commonly take contraceptive pill:
That is ~2% of sexually active women taking the pill will get pregnant each year. Which is tens of thousands of unplanned pregnancies. Certain illnesses and other medication can inhibit the effectiveness of the pill, further reducing the protection rate.
As for doubling up on contraception, condom sex is the worst sex. If you're in a monogamous relationship and know each others sexual history, I can't see any reason why you would want to continue to bag your dick up. Appeasing the Christian Right's warped morals is not a valid answer.
And what about the unlucky woman that loses that lottery?
And what if you still get pregnant?
Devolution
Member
Why aren't you advocating for these to be free? Why aren't you crying about abstinence only education? This is far more constructive to lowering the abortion rate but accidents happen. And you think that despite how safe someone has been they deserve to be burdened with a kid?
Wolves Evolve
Member
Let's get into less dangerous territory.
Who would take up armed struggle to defend their point of view on abortion?
Okay, that's not less dangerous.
Who would take up armed struggle to defend their point of view on abortion?
Okay, that's not less dangerous.
Devolution
Member
Women are willing to put themselves though self-mutilation or shady as fuck procedures just to avoid pregnancy. Let's go back to that shall we?
Um.....I am actually. I really don't oppose any of this. Nothing is "free" though, unfortunately.
Those issues are separate from this issue.
Like I said earlier, I think it should be legal. I just don't like it. I think it's wrong. I think that if your doing it for no other reason than "I don't want to be pregnant" then it's a morally wrong choice. Should it be illegal? No....
Man, I don't know what lottery you play, but I'd like to get in on those odds.
No contraceptive is 100% effective. Doubling up might reduce the risk some more, but you'll still never get to 100%.
Let's say that the protection rate was 99.99% guaranteed. That is still one couple in ten thousand getting knocked up. In a country with over a hundred million sexually active adults, that all adds up to a *significant* number of unplanned pregnancies.
Devolution
Member
Why? You think it's our obligation to be pregnant?
The issue I have with this is a woman using her control of her own body to make a choice is seen as morally wrong by you.
So abortion is only okay if women meet a specific set of precautionary measures?
Jesus.....this is why I don't like people who are hardcore on one side or the other.
This post is just as bad as the other side.
Devolution
Member
How is it just as bad? How am I hardcore? You are basically saying women who don't properly protect themselves deserve pregnancy and or a child as their due punishment.
And I'm the hardcore one?
Sure.
You think its morally wrong for a woman not to "do her duty" of carrying a fetus to term.
Devolution
Member
Hey thanks for the troll. I don't need "soldiers" on my side who basically view women as baby making machines even if they let them do as they please.
Exactly
Devolution
Member
OH how smug of you.
- Status