KoolGuy_GT500
New member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 17
- 0
- 1
Can ninjas have abortions?
Abortion is Wrong
- Thread starter aslan
- Start date
JonJoanette
Member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
They do...you just dont know it.
RESIDENTEVIL
New member
- Apr 15, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
Almost certain everything that controls pain, cognitive function etc etc isn't formed then so it really doesn't bother me.
Also sexual intercourse isn't a reckless decision. There's a huge need for improvement in sexual education, especially in the states, and a change of attitude towards how you approach it with young people. If people got over the bs abstinence type sex education and instead was upfront about everything, informed people about contraception and provided it free you'd see a lot less need for abortions.
Minor side note because its a personal peeve of mine: I find it ironic that religion has a pro life stance against abortion, but they're style of sex education that seeks to ignore the issue and try to keep you pure as long as possible is actively contributing to the need for terminations in the first place.
Also sexual intercourse isn't a reckless decision. There's a huge need for improvement in sexual education, especially in the states, and a change of attitude towards how you approach it with young people. If people got over the bs abstinence type sex education and instead was upfront about everything, informed people about contraception and provided it free you'd see a lot less need for abortions.
Minor side note because its a personal peeve of mine: I find it ironic that religion has a pro life stance against abortion, but they're style of sex education that seeks to ignore the issue and try to keep you pure as long as possible is actively contributing to the need for terminations in the first place.
I also find it ironic that many of the same people that are against abortion are also in favour of executing criminals.
That seems odd to me.
It's not pro-life but more pro-"some life".
Especially when those same people also probably think aborted embryos and blastocysts go to heaven (the best reward ever) while dead criminals go to hell?
That seems odd to me.
It's not pro-life but more pro-"some life".
Especially when those same people also probably think aborted embryos and blastocysts go to heaven (the best reward ever) while dead criminals go to hell?
QuasiIntellectual
New member
- Apr 9, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
Makes sense to me - I don't think prolife is about protecting unborn children so much as it is instituting social controls on women's bodies.
jimbofatty
New member
- Mar 25, 2008
- 28
- 0
- 1
I don't follow this. How can encouraging unmarried people to abstain from sexual activity increase the need for abortions?
Because it's part and parcel of a restrictive attitude to sex in general and lack of education about other birth control methods.
I remember reading that "abstinance only" sex education delays sexual activity by something like 6 months on avergae (if that) and means the teenagers are just as, if not more, likely to engage in other "non pro-creative" sexual activity before then (meaning more infections).
It's not that encouraging abstinence makes more pregnancies but that encouraging abstinence, while also neglecting other areas of sex education, doesn't actually do much to reduce teenage or unwanted pregnancies (IIR the stats and figures correctly).
Whether you think abortion is right or wrong the one thing you won't ever stop is people having sex. So in my world abortion is like putting someone in prison. I don't like that we have to do it but realistically it's just something that needs to be available.
Better to destroy a non-sentient cluster of cells than force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
I remember reading that "abstinance only" sex education delays sexual activity by something like 6 months on avergae (if that) and means the teenagers are just as, if not more, likely to engage in other "non pro-creative" sexual activity before then (meaning more infections).
It's not that encouraging abstinence makes more pregnancies but that encouraging abstinence, while also neglecting other areas of sex education, doesn't actually do much to reduce teenage or unwanted pregnancies (IIR the stats and figures correctly).
Whether you think abortion is right or wrong the one thing you won't ever stop is people having sex. So in my world abortion is like putting someone in prison. I don't like that we have to do it but realistically it's just something that needs to be available.
Better to destroy a non-sentient cluster of cells than force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
dRBAdlInFamOuS
Member
- Mar 24, 2008
- 52
- 0
- 6
It's not about the women's body, it's about the babies body.
homeward2008
New member
- Apr 6, 2008
- 15
- 0
- 1
It would have to be VERY early in the pregnancy for it to not have a body, even as we would recognise it as being an embyonic human body.
The whole question of when does it become a person as opposed to a clump of cells seems like a minefield to me.
The whole question of when does it become a person as opposed to a clump of cells seems like a minefield to me.
Tha_Prince
Member
- Feb 18, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
I mean the potential of a baby. The point I'm trying to get across is that pro lifers aren't trying to control what women do with their body, they are trying to protect what will become a baby. You can't say that their hearts are in the wrong place. I disagree with the idea or passing legislation, but I see their point of view.
YthHomeOwner
New member
- Feb 29, 2008
- 17
- 0
- 1
I'm sure that might be the case for some number individual people, but the pro-life political movement does not confine its attentions to the baby. Historically they have instituted a great many laws that exercised control over women while not necessarily assisting children in any real way all.
Which is a long winded way of saying "yeah-huh."
If we're concerned with potential all of a sudden, why stop with a fertilized egg?
Which is a long winded way of saying "yeah-huh."
If we're concerned with potential all of a sudden, why stop with a fertilized egg?
There are probably 'pro-lifers' with difffering agendas, just as there are probably 'pro-abortion' people with different agendas too. But essentially I think you are right: most people who are uncomfortable with (or downright hostile to) abortion are concerned with the life of the baby, rather than with the morality or whatever of the mother.
That said, obviously where there is risk to the mothers health, the arguments about abortion always change. But that's another matter.
That said, obviously where there is risk to the mothers health, the arguments about abortion always change. But that's another matter.
southinkuknowmusic
New member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 18
- 0
- 1
What really annoys me is when a pro lifer says "Actually, your body isn't yours when a child is inside you". Or variations of that statement.
They have a point though don't they?
If I started giving you a piggy back I couldn't suddenly decide to jump off a bridge. I would, partly at least, be responsible for your safety.
If I was handcuffed to you people would take a dim view of me if I decided to walk out into fast traffic with you trailing behind me.
If women carried babies more visibly I think the responsibilities of the woman would be more apparent and harder to dismiss.
I'm on an odd camp because I think women shoud be allowed non-medical abortions up to an earlier time than is currently allowed.
If I started giving you a piggy back I couldn't suddenly decide to jump off a bridge. I would, partly at least, be responsible for your safety.
If I was handcuffed to you people would take a dim view of me if I decided to walk out into fast traffic with you trailing behind me.
If women carried babies more visibly I think the responsibilities of the woman would be more apparent and harder to dismiss.
I'm on an odd camp because I think women shoud be allowed non-medical abortions up to an earlier time than is currently allowed.
ipsywkx
New member
- Mar 25, 2008
- 23
- 0
- 1
PASmith covered it well. People are going to have sex so abstinence only education is pointless for that reason alone. But it also creates a taboo about sex. People start sleeping together at 15/16/17 and because of the abstinence approach they've been taught, they keep it to themselves and are too worried to reveal it to their parents. They also end up a lot more unaware about contraceptives generally so the chances of pregnancy go up.
I remember last year or the year before there was a study released that compared the cases of STD/I infection and unwanted pregnancy between young people in the US, and young people in the Netherlands where they have a far more open and honest approach to sex. I'll have to dig up the chart a bit later but the difference was staggering. The UK wasn't doing great either because we're still prudish fellows when it comes to our children getting laid, but America had it a lot worse still. I'd hazard a guess the differences in the religious have a to do with it.
As well as pregnancy though they also questioned people about their first time. People in the Netherlands were far more likely to lose their virginity in the safety and comfort of their own room, with their parents aware of what was happening, and with easy access to condoms. Comparitively girls in the US were much more likely to lose it in the backseat of a car using zero protection.
I remember last year or the year before there was a study released that compared the cases of STD/I infection and unwanted pregnancy between young people in the US, and young people in the Netherlands where they have a far more open and honest approach to sex. I'll have to dig up the chart a bit later but the difference was staggering. The UK wasn't doing great either because we're still prudish fellows when it comes to our children getting laid, but America had it a lot worse still. I'd hazard a guess the differences in the religious have a to do with it.
As well as pregnancy though they also questioned people about their first time. People in the Netherlands were far more likely to lose their virginity in the safety and comfort of their own room, with their parents aware of what was happening, and with easy access to condoms. Comparitively girls in the US were much more likely to lose it in the backseat of a car using zero protection.
xx666xxgirl
New member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
Well it also depends on how you view it. I could say "If you are a parasite sucking nutrients straight out of my blood and I decided to jump off a bridge, I would be responsible for destroying that parasite." xD
It all comes down to whether you view a fetus as a child or not.
It all comes down to whether you view a fetus as a child or not.
pennysavior2002
Member
- Feb 27, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
That is annoying, but I find it equally irksome when pro-choicer's say "Why do I have to give my body over to a parasite?" when referring to a pregnancy
It is not a simple B&W issue as many have said, but most fail to argue from a logical perspective either way and it ends up being an emotion fuelled slanging match, which helps no-one and still doesn't resolve the issue
When is it a "life"? that could be debated forever - on the one hand there are the extreme views of it being a fertilized egg (and some even further claiming that spilling of "seed" is tantamount to the same thing) and on the other you have absolute refuse like Kermit Gosnell.
The issues are inextricably intertwined with equal rights and parental rights - is it right to give the father a say in the procedure? Should it just be within a counselling framework if so? If you deny the father the right to have a say (eother pro or again) should the mother have any claim subsequent on finacial aid if she says she wants to keep it and he says he doesn't? It's a mine field of logic and emotional discourse and I have heard very little from either side to convince me absolutley of their position.
For me as a (relatively) progressive 21st century dude I am significantly more towards the pro-choice camp, but my mind is opne to be changed in light of any suitably convincing argument - something that certain cannot be said for either Pro-Life OR Pro Choice
It is not a simple B&W issue as many have said, but most fail to argue from a logical perspective either way and it ends up being an emotion fuelled slanging match, which helps no-one and still doesn't resolve the issue
When is it a "life"? that could be debated forever - on the one hand there are the extreme views of it being a fertilized egg (and some even further claiming that spilling of "seed" is tantamount to the same thing) and on the other you have absolute refuse like Kermit Gosnell.
The issues are inextricably intertwined with equal rights and parental rights - is it right to give the father a say in the procedure? Should it just be within a counselling framework if so? If you deny the father the right to have a say (eother pro or again) should the mother have any claim subsequent on finacial aid if she says she wants to keep it and he says he doesn't? It's a mine field of logic and emotional discourse and I have heard very little from either side to convince me absolutley of their position.
For me as a (relatively) progressive 21st century dude I am significantly more towards the pro-choice camp, but my mind is opne to be changed in light of any suitably convincing argument - something that certain cannot be said for either Pro-Life OR Pro Choice