Originally posted by inimalist
are you suggesting the man hires an outside womb puncher, or just some type of anti-pregnancy violence (like a built woman who just gets off punching pregnant people)?
I was leaning towards the later, as the misandry in these boards is just too much, man.
Women could womb-punch and kill babies too, sure, maybe not as good as a man could, but still.
Originally posted by Robtard
Why?
Because of medical complications.
Some women die during childbirth for similar medical complications as well, many are unforseen.
And if an embryo/fetus dies in the womb like your suggesting, very often without medical assistance, the dead body inside does not simply "pass through her".... it can actually rot inside and cause very serious medical conditions.
Another faced is hemoraging. You do something like that and she has no access to help, she's very likely going to die from blood-loss.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But you're against abortion. So if you think it shouldn't be available in hospitals, it would be you who was insuring nonprofessionals did it.
No, there's a difference bitween saving the life of one, and destroying one because the other doesn't Want it. I didn't say eliminate medical care.... Thats retarded.
There will be cases where life or death choices must be made, in those cases, morality becomes secondary to survival.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but here is the thing, every time i try to address you on this, you go back to stomach punching....
Because that was the point I addressed with my original post. I don't particulary care about the rest of it, but that point earned my ire. you want to kill unborn children like that, you risk killing her as well, and thats advocating murder. And thats only part of the problem.
Originally posted by inimalist
I see why that works as a rhetorical device, but there is no audience here to convince. If you want to talk abortion, you have to realize that most people who have one probably aren't comparable to having a man punch a womb
The fact that your supporting violence in any form simply to abort the child is ludicrous. it's damngerous, it's irresposable, and morality is only part of that.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I still wouldn't consider this outside the woman's power to prevent. Outside of rape, it's still her decision to take the risk.
gotta agree with:
Originally posted by King Kandy
Well what kind of logic was that about providing birth control then? If you think people should stay abstinent then you are seemingly reversing your own position.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Because of medical complications.Some women die during childbirth for similar medical complications as well, many are unforseen.
And if an embryo/fetus dies in the womb like your suggesting, very often without medical assistance, the dead body inside does not simply "pass through her".... it can actually rot inside and cause very serious medical conditions.
Another faced is hemoraging. You do something like that and she has no access to help, she's very likely going to die from blood-loss.
It wasn't really a question, I'm very well aware of the dangers of unprofessional (aka back-ally) abortions, someone in my family died due to getting one in the 1940's.
Point though, making abortions illegal would force women into situations like this.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Because that was the point I addressed with my original post. I don't particulary care about the rest of it, but that point earned my ire. you want to kill unborn children like that, you risk killing her as well, and thats advocating murder. And thats only part of the problem.
the only thing you care to discuss is something nobody was being serious about?
new topic: Ice cream is amazing. I can't believe all you disgusting, immoral people who don't like ice cream. I'm taking a stand here on this controversial issue!
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The fact that your supporting violence in any form simply to abort the child is ludicrous. it's damngerous, it's irresposable, and morality is only part of that.
what violence?
you mean the violence against women that everyone has already noted they were joking about? or are you calling all abortion violence?
Originally posted by -Pr-Finally, I got one in first!
edit: dammit beaten to it.
Originally posted by RobtardI'm trusting she will deliver a more independent response.
Don't be silly, God tells us we can beat, slaughter and eat animals to our leisure, they were created for our sole amusement. It's in the bible!
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Why it is alive thing again why can't anyone understand that. It bleeds!
your body kills millions of living things every day... many with much more independence than a less-than-3-month-old fetus
in fact, both the sperm and the egg, themselves are living things, and millions of sperm die just to produce one fetus...
obviously I'm not going to convince you, because I feel your stance is more religious than based on any position about the definition of life, but for a lot of people, a growth of cells does not equate to a person.
Sort of a related point, would you be in favor of the government regulating what a pregnant person can eat? what they can do? all these other things? Like, surely you see some violation of personal freedom in these, though in the end, it would protect the child. A woman who stresses their body while pregnant is potentially harming the child, should all pregnant women, by law, be banned from things that might be stressful? At what point does a woman actually own her body?
Originally posted by King Kandy
Well what kind of logic was that about providing birth control then? If you think people should stay abstinent then you are seemingly reversing your own position.
I don't know what you mean. You claimed that woman don't have control over getting pregnant because sometimes birth control fails. That isn't true, though, because it's still their decision to have sex, knowing that there is a possibility of getting pregnant. Outside of rape, a woman always has the power to avoid pregnancy.
Does this mean abortion is wrong? No. What I was refuting was the argument that abortion is acceptable because it's not the woman's fault she got pregnant and she had no control over it.
Originally posted by inimalist
your body kills millions of living things every day... many with much more independence than a less-than-3-month-old fetusin fact, both the sperm and the egg, themselves are living things, and millions of sperm die just to produce one fetus...
obviously I'm not going to convince you, because I feel your stance is more religious than based on any position about the definition of life, but for a lot of people, a growth of cells does not equate to a person.
Sort of a related point, would you be in favor of the government regulating what a pregnant person can eat? what they can do? all these other things? Like, surely you see some violation of personal freedom in these, though in the end, it would protect the child. A woman who stresses their body while pregnant is potentially harming the child, should all pregnant women, by law, be banned from things that might be stressful? At what point does a woman actually own her body?
Murder is againist the war so why not Abortions? It is the same thing.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean. You claimed that woman don't have control over getting pregnant because sometimes birth control fails. That isn't true, though, because it's still their decision to have sex, knowing that there is a possibility of getting pregnant. Outside of rape, a woman always has the power to avoid pregnancy.Does this mean abortion is wrong? No. What I was refuting was the argument that abortion is acceptable because it's not the woman's fault she got pregnant and she had no control over it.
I also think its a despicable thing the way you've framed it in terms of being the woman's fault. Its her decision to have sex? Well actually, its both partners. If the birth control fails, the problem could be on either gender's side too. Why are we not talking about "outside of rape, a man has the power to prevent pregnancy (in his girlfriend)."? Yeesh. It takes two people to get someone pregnant.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You said we should provide birth control, so that we don't have cases of unintended pregnancy. The implication seems to be, that you think people should use birth control. Now you're telling me they shouldn't; that they should actually stay abstinent if they want to be safe. So my straight question to you is, do you think unmarried couples should have sex (with birth control)? You seem willing to place blame squarely on the woman if it fails, which leads me to believe you advocate abstinence. But you also talked about how hospitals need to provide free birth control. So I do not understand the logic to what you say. What do you think people will do with that birth control? They will have sex, and they might just get pregnant. And then you say its the woman's fault, even though all they did, was what you were advocating any way.
No, I'm not trying to tell anyone what kind of sex life they should be having. My only point is that if you don't want to get pregnant, there are ways to prevent it, the most significant being to avoid sex completely.
That's it. A post was made earlier in the thread that seemed to suggest that women should be allowed to have abortions because they are the "victims" of pregnancy. As if women have absolutely no control over getting pregnant. My point was that is untrue, outside of rape, they have full control over avoiding pregnancy.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I also think its a despicable thing the way you've framed it in terms of being the woman's fault. Its her decision to have sex? Well actually, its both partners. If the birth control fails, the problem could be on either gender's side too. Why are we not talking about "outside of rape, a man has the power to prevent pregnancy (in his girlfriend)."? Yeesh. It takes two people to get someone pregnant.
You misunderstand. I am not placing the blame solely on the woman. I am simply pointing out that they do have options. Outside of rape, pregnancy is completely avoidable if they choose to take measures to avoid it (The same is true of men, but since men are not involved in abortions the point was never relevant). My only point in bringing this up is to remove the implication that women are "victims" of circumstances outside of their control.