First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Skewered on a Wire Hanger
Posted 7/23/10

maffoo wrote:


angrierchick wrote:

Because sexual activity of any kind is obviously for procreation only, and we're totally living in the Victorian era!


Sexual activity is for procreation; it's what it ultimately exists for. Pregnancy is a risk of any such activity between a man and a woman. This isn't about Victorian attitudes, it's biological fact.
Then either you failed biology, or nature just made exceptions while you weren't looking.
maffoo 
66807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / England
Offline
Posted 7/23/10

DomFortress wrote:


maffoo wrote:


angrierchick wrote:

Because sexual activity of any kind is obviously for procreation only, and we're totally living in the Victorian era!


Sexual activity is for procreation; it's what it ultimately exists for. Pregnancy is a risk of any such activity between a man and a woman. This isn't about Victorian attitudes, it's biological fact.
Then either you failed biology, or nature just made exceptions while you weren't looking.


Whether or not it is enjoyable doesn't change the fact that sex is basically a method of getting sperm and egg to meet. It also doesn't change the fact that any activity that causes a man's sperm to enter a woman's vagina carries a risk of pregnancy.

8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 7/23/10

SeraphAlford wrote:
A) The opening statistic is a known falsehood from the 1930s.
B) The back alley butcher shops are a historical myth.
C) Statistically, legal abortions are not really safer than illegal abortions
D) Legality does play a major role in whether or not a woman decides to obtain an abortion
E) That legalizing abortion makes abortions more frequent,
F) And that this increased number of abortions being obtained also causes a net increase in the number of abortion related deaths ignoring or including the zygotes, fetuses, and embryos.


So what are your thoughts?


There are various ways to abort a foetus. Illegal abortions are really quite real. If your library has it, you can check out Simpson's Forensic Medicine which has a pretty informative chapter on the issue. Inadequate procedures are a major cause of both morbidity and mortality.

Also, to tell the truth, I didn't watch your videos. I would much rather read a 7 page essay.
Posted 7/23/10

maffoo wrote:



Whether or not it is enjoyable doesn't change the fact that sex is basically a method of getting sperm and egg to meet. It also doesn't change the fact that any activity that causes a man's sperm to enter a woman's vagina carries a risk of pregnancy.

Even still, nature itself doesn't just exclude sexual activity for reproduction purpose only. Otherwise how would you explain homosexual activity among animals(humans included) in nature?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

There are various ways to abort a foetus. Illegal abortions are really quite real. If your library has it, you can check out Simpson's Forensic Medicine which has a pretty informative chapter on the issue. Inadequate procedures are a major cause of both morbidity and mortality.

Also, to tell the truth, I didn't watch your videos. I would much rather read a 7 page essay.


Well if you were to listen to my videos you would find that illegal abortions are no more dangerous than legal abortions. In 1972 there were 88 abortion related deaths and only 39 were caused by illegal abortions. Which means that more than half of the deaths were caused by legal abortions. If you don't want to listen to my argument that is your choice.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/10 , edited 7/23/10

DomFortress wrote:]If there's no moral obligation, then is it economically beneficial not to have an abortion?


It is more economically beneficial to obtain an abortion even if there is a moral obligation. In any case my point is that I am against abortion for political and not personal reasons. A good friend of mine obtained an abortion recently. I do not say how saying, "In my opinion I think that abortion should be illegal for political reasons" should make anyone feel bad. That's like saying that it is offensive to say you think we should have gun control because some people own guns.


And when you talk about perspectives, don't forget that while you'll never experience abortion such as you are a male, there has been history of memory manipulation within organized religion. Therefore I'm withholding judgment on the "thousands a pro-life group recently organized a march of 400,000 women carrying 'I regret my abortion,' signs on D.C." As a sociologist in training, I know all too well the societal oppression onto women with in-group loyalty as a form of cohesion force.


I know what you mean. Organized religion does that to gays to make them turn straight, but if it were really effective enough to manipulate people on that scale we would have had a march of 400,000 men and women carrying signs claiming “I am no longer gay,” on D.C a long time ago. Based on the fact that there has not it is then logical to conclude that this particular blend of religious manipulation is not effective enough to explain away that many people.

In addition there are secular individuals who have confessed to regretting their abortions for both moral and pragmatic reasons, and I happen to know at least two such individuals. One actually abandoned Christianity subsequent to the operation. The other is a young woman who was apparently raised in a secular family.

I can give historical examples. Bernard Nathanson was originally Jewish but he abandoned his religion after his sister killed herself. Later he created the NARAL and performed tens of thousands of abortions over a very lengthy career. Then he learned that the fetus was scientifically human and now confesses to profound guilt.


She wouldn't needed an abortion if she didn't get unplanned pregnancy with my sperm, therefore your irrational "perfect" plan cannot debunk my reality. No matter how cleaver you believe you are, the probability that women get pregnant without men's sperm is 0%.


I must confess I have no idea what you are talking about. We are obviously on completely different wave lengths. I never said that I have a perfect solution and nor do I believe there is such thing as a perfect solution to anything that isn’t a mathematical equation. I never said that accidental pregnancies do not exist. I do not see how saying “there are accidently pregnancies,” allows us to conclude that abortion should be legal anymore than infanticide should be legal. You are talking about rationality but all of your arguments appear to have been emotional appeals.

You think material resources are the only "social support" that children need? You charity types are just nervous around children, that's why you're the "provider" not the "caregiver". All the while you're still hiding your incompetence with the typical "fascism"card, how boring and sociologically clueless of you.


Numerous things occur to me. The first is that you like to use random hyperlinks that don’t progress or modify the discussion in any fashion. The second is that what you have just expressed is nothing more than a generalized prejudice directed at people who participate in charities--which really, is perhaps the most heinous form of bigotry I think I have ever heard of. The next is that you are judging somebody you’ve never even met and making assumptions about my character. The last is that you don’t seem capable of holding a coherent conversation and that you have been rambling thoughtlessly this entire time.

In any case, I have every intention to one day adopt a number of children. But if you think that I, an unemployed college student, am yet in a position to provide for a child then I do not think that is I who am naïve.


Also, I wasn't even aware of my girlfriend's abortion until 2 years ago. So I've no idea whatever that you meant by "abortion is hard on a man" crap. When I personally took that fact well with ease.


That settles it, you have no idea what you’re talking about.


DomFortress Otherwise don't think it's so easy for the men during pregnancy, when the women have every right to choose whatever they want to do with their own bodies, that includes their reproductive function.



8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 7/24/10

SeraphAlford wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:

There are various ways to abort a foetus. Illegal abortions are really quite real. If your library has it, you can check out Simpson's Forensic Medicine which has a pretty informative chapter on the issue. Inadequate procedures are a major cause of both morbidity and mortality.

Also, to tell the truth, I didn't watch your videos. I would much rather read a 7 page essay.


Well if you were to listen to my videos you would find that illegal abortions are no more dangerous than legal abortions. In 1972 there were 88 abortion related deaths and only 39 were caused by illegal abortions. Which means that more than half of the deaths were caused by legal abortions. If you don't want to listen to my argument that is your choice.


Well if you were to read a book on Forensic Medicine, you would find that illegal abortions pose a very real risk.

Additionally, academic discourse is usually in written format. If you like making videos, which you most certainly do, that is none of my concern. I come here hoping to read your arguments in a conveniently accessible format, not to listen to a recording.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

Well if you were to read a book on Forensic Medicine, you would find that illegal abortions pose a very real risk.

Additionally, academic discourse is usually in written format. If you like making videos, which you most certainly do, that is none of my concern. I come here hoping to read your arguments in a conveniently accessible format, not to listen to a recording.


Well, if I ever get around to it I will transfer this over in a written format and post it here. In any case, illegal abortions are not a real problem. In fact, legalized abortion increases the number of abortions being obtained and as a result the number of people being killed by abortions. 90% of illegal abortions are performed in cleanly environments by professional physicians who just happen to have very strong prochoice opinions and a willingness to risk their job for what they believe is right. Abortion, legal or otherwise, just isn’t a dangerous operation anymore.
1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 7/24/10

maffoo wrote:


angrierchick wrote:

Because sexual activity of any kind is obviously for procreation only, and we're totally living in the Victorian era!


Sexual activity is for procreation; it's what it ultimately exists for. Pregnancy is a risk of any such activity between a man and a woman. This isn't about Victorian attitudes, it's biological fact.


And yet, various means of protection still exist.

Oral sex, digital sex and masturbation still count as sexual activity. Why are we not complaining about these. Why?
Posted 7/24/10 , edited 7/25/10

SeraphAlford wrote:


DomFortress wrote:]If there's no moral obligation, then is it economically beneficial not to have an abortion?


It is more economically beneficial to obtain an abortion even if there is a moral obligation. In any case my point is that I am against abortion for political and not personal reasons. A good friend of mine obtained an abortion recently. I do not say how saying, "In my opinion I think that abortion should be illegal for political reasons" should make anyone feel bad. That's like saying that it is offensive to say you think we should have gun control because some people own guns.


And when you talk about perspectives, don't forget that while you'll never experience abortion such as you are a male, there has been history of memory manipulation within organized religion. Therefore I'm withholding judgment on the "thousands a pro-life group recently organized a march of 400,000 women carrying 'I regret my abortion,' signs on D.C." As a sociologist in training, I know all too well the societal oppression onto women with in-group loyalty as a form of cohesion force.


I know what you mean. Organized religion does that to gays to make them turn straight, but if it were really effective enough to manipulate people on that scale we would have had a march of 400,000 men and women carrying signs claiming “I am no longer gay,” on D.C a long time ago. Based on the fact that there has not it is then logical to conclude that this particular blend of religious manipulation is not effective enough to explain away that many people.

In addition there are secular individuals who have confessed to regretting their abortions for both moral and pragmatic reasons, and I happen to know at least two such individuals. One actually abandoned Christianity subsequent to the operation. The other is a young woman who was apparently raised in a secular family.

I can give historical examples. Bernard Nathanson was originally Jewish but he abandoned his religion after his sister killed herself. Later he created the NARAL and performed tens of thousands of abortions over a very lengthy career. Then he learned that the fetus was scientifically human and now confesses to profound guilt.


She wouldn't needed an abortion if she didn't get unplanned pregnancy with my sperm, therefore your irrational "perfect" plan cannot debunk my reality. No matter how cleaver you believe you are, the probability that women get pregnant without men's sperm is 0%.


I must confess I have no idea what you are talking about. We are obviously on completely different wave lengths. I never said that I have a perfect solution and nor do I believe there is such thing as a perfect solution to anything that isn’t a mathematical equation. I never said that accidental pregnancies do not exist. I do not see how saying “there are accidently pregnancies,” allows us to conclude that abortion should be legal anymore than infanticide should be legal. You are talking about rationality but all of your arguments appear to have been emotional appeals.

You think material resources are the only "social support" that children need? You charity types are just nervous around children, that's why you're the "provider" not the "caregiver". All the while you're still hiding your incompetence with the typical "fascism"card, how boring and sociologically clueless of you.


Numerous things occur to me. The first is that you like to use random hyperlinks that don’t progress or modify the discussion in any fashion. The second is that what you have just expressed is nothing more than a generalized prejudice directed at people who participate in charities--which really, is perhaps the most heinous form of bigotry I think I have ever heard of. The next is that you are judging somebody you’ve never even met and making assumptions about my character. The last is that you don’t seem capable of holding a coherent conversation and that you have been rambling thoughtlessly this entire time.

In any case, I have every intention to one day adopt a number of children. But if you think that I, an unemployed college student, am yet in a position to provide for a child then I do not think that is I who am naïve.


Also, I wasn't even aware of my girlfriend's abortion until 2 years ago. So I've no idea whatever that you meant by "abortion is hard on a man" crap. When I personally took that fact well with ease.


That settles it, you have no idea what you’re talking about.


DomFortress Otherwise don't think it's so easy for the men during pregnancy, when the women have every right to choose whatever they want to do with their own bodies, that includes their reproductive function.
What kind of a politician are you? Who's trying to fix things that's not a dangerous threat to the public by your own claim: one without a principle of reasoning.

And yet organized religious manipulation does exist, so how can you proof that those 400,000 women wasn't being successfully manipulated through an organized sociological process?(religious or secular society notwithstanding) Without you using psychologically isolated individual case, when I'm referring to a sociological process within any organizational or institutional structure.

You have no idea what I'm referring to, because you're politically violating on an individual's basic right to choose for an abortion, using proven societal oppression. And that's not something that can be solved with simple mathematics, aka a basic belief in classic foundationalism in philosophy. Also, claiming that you know what I meant in one instant and then made several separate claims of the opposite is you being a hypocrite. While you don't even understand for yourself just how human individuals can make their own independent conviction without them obeying social norms. Simply by them emphasize the emotions of other people's.

Finally, animals controlling their own biological reproductive function is a part of nature itself. So for you to ignore that fact is you being stupid on the nature of both abortion and emotion. And for you to make empty future promises without those knowledge only proves just how stupid you really are.


angrierchick wrote:


maffoo wrote:


angrierchick wrote:

Because sexual activity of any kind is obviously for procreation only, and we're totally living in the Victorian era!


Sexual activity is for procreation; it's what it ultimately exists for. Pregnancy is a risk of any such activity between a man and a woman. This isn't about Victorian attitudes, it's biological fact.


And yet, various means of protection still exist.

Oral sex, digital sex and masturbation still count as sexual activity. Why are we not complaining about these. Why?
And for circulating communal memes, when ideas having sex.

... I'm sorry, that was a harmless joke which was also irrelevant. So "ABORT"!
12302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/10

DomFortress wrote:

Hey, if you want children to be born into this world without sufficient support network, then yours first.

I could've been a father two years ago, but my girlfriend was still in her final year of nursing school back then, while I OTOH couldn't financially support a family with whatever I was earning. Therefore if you think your unrealistic moral is more important than creating a sustainable social network for childrearing, then feel free to let it rip. Otherwise don't think it's so easy for the men during pregnancy, when the women have every right to choose whatever they want to do with their own bodies, that includes their reproductive function.

In other words, stop making my girlfriend feeling guilty about something that's obviously not her fault. When she had her abortion done in complete secrecy, because of unnecessary societal oppression coming from the likes of you.

EDIT: As an afterthought, while Canada doesn't have any regulation on abortion, it also boasts the lowest maternal mortality rate for early abortion. Thanks to solely the "women exercise their sensible moral judgment and doctors exercise their professional medical judgment, and that's all that's needed to regulate the process."

In other words, either the women in US are morally corrupted, or the doctors in the US are professionally bankrupted, or it could be both. But the fact still remains that "A more tolerant attitude towards sexuality, contraception, and abortion would undoubtedly serve to reduce America's unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates, and further improve the safety of abortion."




Maybe you should have some personal responsibility... Ya know, some of that might work?
Posted 7/24/10

KinKthx wrote:





Maybe you should have some personal responsibility... Ya know, some of that might work?
Can you be more clear and distinct? As in just what sort of responsibility are we talking about, besides posing for topless photo without a face, for example.

Use methods of contraception? Check. Ask for consent? Check check. Completely in control of my action without my decision process under the influence of drugs? Check check check. Just what else can be done besides abstinence, not talk about sex? That's violating individual's freedom of expression, and I'm not cool with that.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/24/10 , edited 7/24/10

DomFortress wrote:

Can you be more clear and distinct? As in just what sort of responsibility are we talking about, besides posing for topless photo without a face, for example.

Use methods of contraception? Check. Ask for consent? Check check. Completely in control of my action without my decision process under the influence of drugs? Check check check. Just what else can be done besides abstinence, not talk about sex? That's violating individual's freedom of expression, and I'm not cool with that.


Well if you don't want to get pregnant, then maybe you shouldn't have sex, but that's an alien concept to most people. Apparently so is birth control.

Ever hear of Tubal Ligation, will solve that problem.
Posted 7/24/10 , edited 7/24/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Can you be more clear and distinct? As in just what sort of responsibility are we talking about, besides posing for topless photo without a face, for example.

Use methods of contraception? Check. Ask for consent? Check check. Completely in control of my action without my decision process under the influence of drugs? Check check check. Just what else can be done besides abstinence, not talk about sex? That's violating individual's freedom of expression, and I'm not cool with that.


Well if you don't want to get pregnant, then maybe you shouldn't have sex, but that's an alien concept to most people. Apparently so is birth control.
Yet when you can observe both casual sex and birth control among animals in nature, it's thereby your idea of "don't have sex" that's alienating, within the context of natural human social behavior known as human sexuality.


Ever hear of Tubal Ligation, will solve that problem.
You first, otherwise it's just another one of your baseless entitlement claim.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/24/10 , edited 7/24/10

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Can you be more clear and distinct? As in just what sort of responsibility are we talking about, besides posing for topless photo without a face, for example.

Use methods of contraception? Check. Ask for consent? Check check. Completely in control of my action without my decision process under the influence of drugs? Check check check. Just what else can be done besides abstinence, not talk about sex? That's violating individual's freedom of expression, and I'm not cool with that.


Well if you don't want to get pregnant, then maybe you shouldn't have sex, but that's an alien concept to most people. Apparently so is birth control.
Yet when you can observe both casual sex and birth control among animals in nature, it's thereby your idea of "don't have sex" that's alienating, within the context of natural human social behavior known as human sexuality.


Ever hear of Tubal Ligation, will solve that problem.
You first, otherwise it's just another one of your baseless entitlement claim.


I can't get that, Im male. I don't have fallopian tubes.

You don't even know what tubal ligation is do you ? Its the female equivalent of a vasectomy.

Where the tubes are pinched off, preventing any more ovums from getting fertilized.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.