Doctors who do abortions

[actuarial]

You have suggested that women should be able to have sex without having to be forced to become a parent. But that a man should not.

I have not suggested any inequality. The alternative to my suggestion is that a women has to risk her life to have sex and the man does not. In either case, there is not perfect equality. The inequality arises because of nature, not because of the law.

I suggest both mothers and fathers should be obligated to pay child support if the other parent raises the kid. I suggest that both mother and father should have to agree to put the kid up for adoption. I suggest that neither mother nor father be legally obligated to risk their life or health to keep the child alive.

I am in favour of as much equality as possible, but it is impossible for there to be perfect equality. If you have a suggestion which creates more equality, I'm all ears.

 

[alzan]

You can actually hear the goal posts being shifted in these posts.

Yeah, it's a loud grating sound like nails across chalkboards turned up to 11.

Nehalem256 and Incorruptible are becoming quite good at it, almost as good as cybrsage.

 

[nehalem256]

I have not suggested any inequality. The alternative to my suggestion is that a women has to risk her life to have sex and the man does not. In either case, there is not perfect equality. The inequality arises because of nature, not because of the law.

The simplest solution would be for the woman to be able to choose to abort or not. And the man to be able to choose to be a father or not.

No one is forced to risk their life. No one has forced financial responsibility. Equality!

I suggest both mothers and fathers should be obligated to pay child support if the other parent raises the kid. I suggest that both mother and father should have to agree to put the kid up for adoption. I suggest that neither mother nor father be legally obligated to risk their life or health to keep the child alive.

I am in favour of as much equality as possible, but it is impossible for there to be perfect equality. If you have a suggestion which creates more equality, I'm all ears.

See my suggestion above.

 

[actuarial]

The simplest solution would be for the woman to be able to choose to abort or not. And the man to be able to choose to be a father or not.

No one is forced to risk their life. No one has forced financial responsibility. Equality!

And can the woman choose to have the baby, and if the man wants to keep it she is not obligated to pay any financial support?

It's still not 100% equality, because even having an abortion is still a health risk, but it's certainly as equal as my suggestion. Nature will always create an inequality in any solution.

The problem becomes the child. I think most people recognize that there should be at least a financial obligation to children. I prefer my solution in terms of balancing fairness between mother and father and also fairness to the child. But it sounds like you're against making abortion illegal as well, so I don't know why we're even arguing in the first place.

 

[cybrsage]

Yeah, it's a loud grating sound like nails across chalkboards turned up to 11.

Nehalem256 and Incorruptible are becoming quite good at it, almost as good as cybrsage.

I do believe you are confusing the grinding of the gears of thought in your mind for a chalkboard. I understand why you would be confused, you are not used to having to think for yourself and it is uncomfortable. Get used to it, though, for the more opposing views you read the less you will be able to blindly regurtitate that which you have been told to think.

 

[alzan]

I do believe you are confusing the grinding of the gears of thought in your mind for a chalkboard. I understand why you would be confused, you are not used to having to think for yourself and it is uncomfortable. Get used to it, though, for the more opposing views you read the less you will be able to blindly regurtitate that which you have been told to think.

Just because you believe something does not make it true.

cybrsage has his panties in a wad over something I typed. I'd have thought you would have developed a thicker skin by now.

 

[nehalem256]

And can the woman choose to have the baby, and if the man wants to keep it she is not obligated to pay any financial support?

I guess if the woman wanted to carry the child for 9 months and then hand it over to the man to raise and never see it again I have no objection to such an arrangement. Women already basically have this option. They just give the child to a stranger instead.

It's still not 100% equality, because even having an abortion is still a health risk, but it's certainly as equal as my suggestion. Nature will always create an inequality in any solution.

I would say the health risk is balanced out by the fact that the woman gets full choice. If she wants to abort but the man wants to keep it he would be out of luck.

Nature creates a difference. Different but equal as it were.

The problem becomes the child. I think most people recognize that there should be at least a financial obligation to children. I prefer my solution in terms of balancing fairness between mother and father and also fairness to the child. But it sounds like you're against making abortion illegal as well, so I don't know why we're even arguing in the first place.

This is because Republicans think both men and women should be held accountable.

And Democrats think that men exist to be slaves to women's choices.

 

[CitizenKain]

This is because Republicans think both men and women should be held accountable.

And Democrats think that men exist to be slaves to women's choices.

No matter how many times you repeat something you made up, it will never be true.

 

[Sunburn74]

The simplest solution would be for the woman to be able to choose to abort or not. And the man to be able to choose to be a father or not.

No one is forced to risk their life. No one has forced financial responsibility. Equality!



See my suggestion above.

Any woman who chooses to be pregnant risks her life. The ways to die (or be left with serious morbidity) from pregnancy and childbirth are innumerable.

This is the reason a guy cannot force a woman to bear a child, even if he wants to raise it alone. He bears none of the actual physical risk of pregnancy. She may die or worse suffer brain injury during the process of pregnancy. Ultimately its her body (zygotes and fetuses don't and should not have rights. A fetus, once you strip away all the emotional connections that come with the term, is essentially a parasite until its born) and she ultimately gets the right to decide if she wants to accept the risk, starting with the simple baseline mortality rate of 24 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, before any additional risk her health status and pre-existing conditions will add to that.

 

[nehalem256]

Any woman who chooses to be pregnant risks her life. The ways to die (or be left with serious morbidity) from pregnancy and childbirth are innumerable.

This is the reason a guy cannot force a woman to bear a child, even if he wants to raise it alone. He bears none of the actual physical risk of pregnancy. She may die or worse suffer brain injury during the process of pregnancy. Ultimately its her body (zygotes and fetuses don't and should not have rights. A fetus, once you strip away all the emotional connections that come with the term, is essentially a parasite until its born) and she ultimately gets the right to decide if she wants to accept the risk, starting with the simple baseline mortality rate of 24 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, before any additional risk her health status and pre-existing conditions will add to that.

1.) Your baseline mortality stats seem to be inflated http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/80743.php

According to the figures, the U.S. maternal mortality rate was 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004. The rate was 12 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2003 -- the first year the maternal death rate was more than 10 since 1977

2.) I did not realize that men never died because of working

3.) If you strip out the emotional connections then there is no reason to oppose mandatory abortions for women who cannot support a child.

 

[cybrsage]

Any woman who chooses to be pregnant risks her life. The ways to die (or be left with serious morbidity) from pregnancy and childbirth are innumerable.

Maybe we should ban childbirth then, since it is so horrifyingly dangerous.

 

[nehalem256]

Maybe we should ban childbirth then, since it is so horrifyingly dangerous.

Certainly sounds that way. I guess anyone who opposes mandatory abortions is really engaging in a war on women.

 

[actuarial]

Maybe we should ban childbirth then, since it is so horrifyingly dangerous.

Certainly sounds that way. I guess anyone who opposes mandatory abortions is really engaging in a war on women.

Do neither of you actually understand the difference between a personal choice of taking on a risk compared to someone else dictating that risk?

 

[cybrsage]

Just because you believe something does not make it true.

Correct, but in this specific instance it is true.

cybrsage has his panties in a wad over something I typed. I'd have thought you would have developed a thicker skin by now.

Dude, you are not important at all, and as such have no ability to get me even close to being upset or even slightly irritated. Being a nobody, the most you get out of me is a shake of the head in sadness when I think that you can actually vote.

But none of this has to do with actuarial putting forth the horrific position that humans who are dependant on others for life are actually not humans.

 

[cybrsage]

Do neither of you actually understand the difference between a personal choice of taking on a risk compared to someone else dictating that risk?

We are talking about the government doing it, like the personal choice to not wear a seatbelt because it is too dangerous.

Since not wearing a seatbelt is far far too dangerous to be allowed to do, and childbirth is more dangerous than not wearing a seatblet, we obviously should ensure childbirth is not allowed as well.

Maybe we could, instead of an outright ban, allow women to apply for a childbirth license. They could then sign saying they understand the risks involved in childbirth. They would also require any man used to place them in this risk to sign a document saying they also accept the risks involved.

Sound like a good compromise, since childbirth is so dangerous (according to your position)?

 

[nehalem256]

Do neither of you actually understand the difference between a personal choice of taking on a risk compared to someone else dictating that risk?

Yes I do. And I said women should be able to get abortions. I was just also opposed to women dictating to men... because I am not a hypocrite.

Why should an 18 year old male have his life ruined because his girlfriend is too stupid to get an abortion?

 

[shortylickens]

Yes I do. And I said women should be able to get abortions. I was just also opposed to women dictating to men... because I am not a hypocrite.

Why should an 18 year old male have his life ruined because his girlfriend is too stupid to get an abortion?

Wow!
Theres just all kinds of wrong with that.

 

[nehalem256]

Wow!
Theres just all kinds of wrong with that.

Yes I agree that allowing teenage girls to dictate to teenage boys that they must put their life on hold to support her stupid choice not to get an abortion is all kinds of wrong.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yes I do. And I said women should be able to get abortions. I was just also opposed to women dictating to men... because I am not a hypocrite.

Why should an 18 year old male have his life ruined because his girlfriend is too stupid to get an abortion?

Why was he too stupid to use a condom?
What if she can't get an abortion because she lives in a red state where abortions are essentially outlawed because of republicans like you doing their best to outlaw it?

 

[nehalem256]

Why was he too stupid to use a condom?

You do realize condoms can fail. Why was the girl to stupid to make sure he used a condom? You do realize girls participate in sex too right?

But the irony is ridiculous. You sound just like a Republican who wants to prevent girls from having abortions. Why do you want to punish men for having sex?

What if she can't get an abortion because she lives in a red state where abortions are essentially outlawed because of republicans like you doing their best to outlaw it?

So you think many Republicans would agree with the obvious implication in this statement?

Why should an 18 year old male have his life ruined because his girlfriend is too stupid to get an abortion?

What about that statement tells you I think abortion should be outlawed?

 

[cybrsage]

What about that statement tells you I think abortion should be outlawed?

I think it was when you said, repeatedly, that some women should be forced to have abortions. What else could he have gotten out of it?

 

[alzan]

Correct, but in this specific instance it is true.



Dude, you are not important at all, and as such have no ability to get me even close to being upset or even slightly irritated. Being a nobody, the most you get out of me is a shake of the head in sadness when I think that you can actually vote.

But none of this has to do with actuarial putting forth the horrific position that humans who are dependant on others for life are actually not humans.

That's how I can tell you're upset; you get all smug with what you think are biting retorts. Everyone who dares to question your statements or positions is "not important at all". "I shake my head in sadness", says he hoping to eke out another biting retort as he leans back in his chair, a look of smugness and satisfaction on his face, and the heady intoxication of narcissism flows through his mind.

And the purposeful misunderstanding/misstating of what some people post is just more of your mental goalpost shifting, attempting to take the discussion in another direction.

There is a difference between human life and human beings or potential human beings, whether you agree or not. Every case/circumstance needs to be considered in and of itself.

 

[cybrsage]

That's how I can tell you're upset; you get all smug with what you think are biting retorts.

It is not even a retort; it is a statement of fact. Tell me, why should you be important to me? Why should I treat you as someone I should find important?

There is a difference between human life and human beings or potential human beings, whether you agree or not. Every case/circumstance needs to be considered in and of itself.

Since the unborn human is a human life, your sentence makes no sense. If it is not a human life, what species of life is the unborn human?

 

[Geosurface]

We just hit 7 billion recently, I say the more abortions the better.

They should be encouraged. I used to say I was pro-choice but anti-abortion and I didn't like it, I still find the idea distasteful but honestly you just at some point have to re-evaluate your idea of the worth of human life when there is SO much of it and 90% of them are violent, ignorant idiots anyway.

I wouldn't want a fetus aborted a month before birth of course... and I'm not scientifically minded enough to be making decisions about when the cut off should be, but I do know that if you catch it early enough, there is no reasonable argument to be made that that is a "human being" in any meaningful sense. So I say, play ball.

In fact I think the government should start giving like a $20,000 incentive payment to any person below a certain income level or with a certain level of criminal record who will volunteer to be sterilized.

 

[alzan]

It is not even a retort; it is a statement of fact. Tell me, why should you be important to me? Why should I treat you as someone I should find important?



Since the unborn human is a human life, your sentence makes no sense. If it is not a human life, what species of life is the unborn human?

There you go again with your smugness. Old habits die hard. I though according to your book of faith that all life was important? Maybe you're not truly living your life according to the principles laid out in that book?

As I've said to you and others on this subject: a zygote/blastocyst/clump of cells is human life and potential human being. Many events can happen before birth that will end the life of the potential human being. All I can say for myself is that were I a woman, married or not, who knew that BC had not worked or failed, I would want free and unfettered access to Plan B/Morning After pills or access to medical professionals who could perform my abortion performed safely no matter what part of the country I lived in.

Once our medical technology advances to the point that we can safely do away with the ~1030 late term abortions that take place every year then people on both sides of the issue can breathe a collective sigh of relief. As it currently stands, that's a pretty low number and one I and others can live with until medical knowledge advances.