Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Slarg232 wrote:

Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.

Then I suppose yes.

I don't know you, Slarg. We haven't really gotten into it here, good or bad, that I recall. My feeling from your posts is you had an idea here - that a man having less rights to a baby he contributed to than a woman was in a way an injustice. I think most people would agree that's probably true, to a degree: it's not fair.

Then you went a little further and tried to right this injustice. The problem is that this is a binary choice - a little injustice for the man, yes, but the only other side of the scale is a vast injustice for a woman. I think you, as several others posited, didn't think things all the way through to the logical conclusion of your idea. You got called on it, and seeing no other choice - you created this thread, after all - decided the only option here was to double down and run with it. I can understand all of these things. I've said and done things that I realized were suboptimal and pride or embarrassment didn't at the time allow me to be honest and admit my idea wasn't so hot. I picked bad cards and it was a lousy hand, but screw it, maybe everyone else will have worse hands, right? Anyway, it's OK, it's human nature really. I certainly wouldn't think any less of anyone who expressed an idea, was shown it was poor, and admitted such. In fact, doing so is a sign of grace and intelligence, in my book. I always try to admit when I am wrong and have done so in these threads more than once.

Because the other option - that you really believe the ideas you are expressing - these repugnant, ugly ideas, that embrace a medieval view of women as chattels of men, life-support systems for a womb, who exist only to service a man's seed as he desires, or not - that would be more difficult for me to believe. I've been told on these very fora that I am naive, and I suppose at least sometimes it's true, but I just can't find it in be to believe a poster with a US flag next to their name, in the year 2014, honestly holds such horrifically ideas about the role of women that the civilized world has all but abandoned, save for fundamentalist pockets in tribal Pakistan and other Taliban controlled areas, and suchlike.

I guess it's a flaw, for me to be so optimistic about people, but here we are.

OP should have made a poll: Should the guy have a say (that can affect the outcome) in abortion?

- Yes
- No

......... would have been more useful.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.

It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.

No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.

I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.

Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?

I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.

Clearly you've never been around a pregnant woman or that whole childbirth thing.
You do know that women still die giving birth right? Since you forced her to carry the child to term can the state then prosecute you for murder?

I don't mean it in a dismissive way but I would say keep your opinions to yourself. I haven't told anybody whether I agree or disagree with abortion as I wouldn't want anybody I love to ever throw it back in my face. If a women chooses to keep or abort a child, that is her choice and her choice alone. Whether you agree or disagree the important thing is to be there for her.

 Ouze wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.

Then I suppose yes.

I don't know you, Slarg. We haven't really gotten into it here, good or bad, that I recall. My feeling from your posts is you had an idea here - that a man having less rights to a baby he contributed to than a woman was in a way an injustice. I think most people would agree that's probably true, to a degree: it's not fair.

Then you went a little further and tried to right this injustice. The problem is that this is a binary choice - a little injustice for the man, yes, but the only other side of the scale is a vast injustice for a woman. I think you, as several others posited, didn't think things all the way through to the logical conclusion of your idea. You got called on it, and seeing no other choice - you created this thread, after all - decided the only option here was to double down and run with it. I can understand all of these things. I've said and done things that I realized were suboptimal and pride or embarrassment didn't at the time allow me to be honest and admit my idea wasn't so hot. I picked bad cards and it was a lousy hand, but screw it, maybe everyone else will have worse hands, right? Anyway, it's OK, it's human nature really. I certainly wouldn't think any less of anyone who expressed an idea, was shown it was poor, and admitted such. In fact, doing so is a sign of grace and intelligence, in my book. I always try to admit when I am wrong and have done so in these threads more than once.

Because the other option - that you really believe the ideas you are expressing - these repugnant, ugly ideas, that embrace a medieval view of women as chattels of men, life-support systems for a womb, who exist only to service a man's seed as he desires, or not - that would be more difficult for me to believe. I've been told on these very fora that I am naive, and I suppose at least sometimes it's true, but I just can't find it in be to believe a poster with a US flag next to their name, in the year 2014, honestly holds such horrifically ideas about the role of women that the civilized world has all but abandoned, save for fundamentalist pockets in tribal Pakistan and other Taliban controlled areas, and suchlike.

I guess it's a flaw, for me to be so optimistic about people, but here we are.

This. Respect for Ouze +10, and duly exalted.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.

It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.

No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.

I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.

Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?

I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.

Clearly you've never been around a pregnant woman or that whole childbirth thing.
You do know that women still die giving birth right? Since you forced her to carry the child to term can the state then prosecute you for murder?

Essentially making your penis the murder weapon :O

Gives a whole new meaning to Number 1 With a Bullet

And just to throw a wrench into the "pregnant women get all the rights" crowd:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/pregnant-living-will-_n_4562964.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

A woman's right to direct her healthcare via advanced directives is null and void as soon as she becomes pregnant in these states:



Right now a woman is artificially kept alive in Texas despite her previous wishes to the contrary and the fact that any event that left her brain damaged will also left the fetus damaged as well.

She is being kept alive, despite her legally exercised option to prevent this, all so that she can serve as an artificially breathing incubator.

Is this like a dream come true for you OP? A woman's medical rights reduced to zero and her body used as an incubator despite her will, just an extension of the machines keeping her alive?

Ugh, my state's on that list...

Ohio, truly history's greatest monster.

Thanks Ohio!

 Alfndrate wrote:
Ugh, my state's on that list...

Ohio, truly history's greatest monster.

Thanks Ohio!

Again its the interest of the child thing. I know it seems to throw people, but the State has an interest in the welfare of the child. Once the timeline hits a certain point the State has Compelling Interest in the rights of the child.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Ugh, my state's on that list...

Ohio, truly history's greatest monster.

Thanks Ohio!

Again its the interest of the child thing. I know it seems to throw people, but the State has an interest in the welfare of the child. Once the timeline hits a certain point the State has Compelling Interest in the rights of the child.

As much as I am pro-choice I do agree that viability should be the line where things change (and pro-choice groups need to acknowledge that with medical advances, viability comes earlier than before).

This particular case is just BS because when this happened she would have been allowed to walk into a clinic and make the decision to abort because the pregnancy was not that advanced. She would have also had the legal right to decide not to be on life support. On the day of the incident she could have aborted without any problems. But not she is forced to be an incubator because the state will not honor her advanced directives because of a pregnancy that she could have terminated 5 minutes before she became unconscious.

 Ketara wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.

Then I suppose yes.

I don't know you, Slarg. We haven't really gotten into it here, good or bad, that I recall. My feeling from your posts is you had an idea here - that a man having less rights to a baby he contributed to than a woman was in a way an injustice. I think most people would agree that's probably true, to a degree: it's not fair.

Then you went a little further and tried to right this injustice. The problem is that this is a binary choice - a little injustice for the man, yes, but the only other side of the scale is a vast injustice for a woman. I think you, as several others posited, didn't think things all the way through to the logical conclusion of your idea. You got called on it, and seeing no other choice - you created this thread, after all - decided the only option here was to double down and run with it. I can understand all of these things. I've said and done things that I realized were suboptimal and pride or embarrassment didn't at the time allow me to be honest and admit my idea wasn't so hot. I picked bad cards and it was a lousy hand, but screw it, maybe everyone else will have worse hands, right? Anyway, it's OK, it's human nature really. I certainly wouldn't think any less of anyone who expressed an idea, was shown it was poor, and admitted such. In fact, doing so is a sign of grace and intelligence, in my book. I always try to admit when I am wrong and have done so in these threads more than once.

Because the other option - that you really believe the ideas you are expressing - these repugnant, ugly ideas, that embrace a medieval view of women as chattels of men, life-support systems for a womb, who exist only to service a man's seed as he desires, or not - that would be more difficult for me to believe. I've been told on these very fora that I am naive, and I suppose at least sometimes it's true, but I just can't find it in be to believe a poster with a US flag next to their name, in the year 2014, honestly holds such horrifically ideas about the role of women that the civilized world has all but abandoned, save for fundamentalist pockets in tribal Pakistan and other Taliban controlled areas, and suchlike.

I guess it's a flaw, for me to be so optimistic about people, but here we are.

This. Respect for Ouze +10, and duly exalted.

Second.

I have a question. Does anyone here who does not support abortion also not support the Birth Control Pill?

 gossipmeng wrote:
OP should have made a poll: Should the guy have a say (that can affect the outcome) in abortion?

- Yes
- No

......... would have been more useful.

Anything other than the poll itself would have gone the same way as this thread

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have a question. Does anyone here who does not support abortion also not support the Birth Control Pill?

They're different things entirely. One is a preventative, the other is an after-the-fact solution. One prevents, one cancels. Totally different things.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have a question. Does anyone here who does not support abortion also not support the Birth Control Pill?

My parents don't. But I do support birth control.

Birth control is REALLY cheap.

 kronk wrote:
Birth control is REALLY cheap.

Interesting. I always considered WoW to be a big sex chat with nice minigame, I know a number of parents who would never have found together if not for WoW.
But hey, different country, different outcome.