Reply to All
Show messages
Messages
Inbox
Search
Login
1–10
…
31–40
41–50
51–60
61–70
…
81–88
obama's speech
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)
17 Sep 2014 08:23
To: ANT_THOMAS
56 of 88
41193.56
In reply to
41193.55
Hah. I have absolutely no idea why I thought that post was to me -_-
From: milko
17 Sep 2014 09:09
To: ANT_THOMAS
57 of 88
41193.57
In reply to
41193.53
Quote:
From a medical/physical POV I can see there being an issue, as well as from a psychological POV.
But otherwise, what is the issue?
So, apart from physically and mentally, what's the issue? What's left for there to be an issue with?
From: ANT_THOMAS
17 Sep 2014 09:15
To: milko
58 of 88
41193.58
In reply to
41193.57
If you consider it to be an issue, there could be a moral/ethical issue.
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)
17 Sep 2014 09:40
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N)
59 of 88
41193.59
In reply to
41193.54
quote:
X3N0PH0N
I, myself, would not want to have an abortion
You can't have an abortion, you haven't got a womb
</reg>
EDITED: 17 Sep 2014 09:41 by MR_BASTARD
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)
17 Sep 2014 09:49
To: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)
60 of 88
41193.60
In reply to
41193.59
Racist.
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)
17 Sep 2014 09:55
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N)
61 of 88
41193.61
In reply to
41193.60
Poof.
From: fixrman
17 Sep 2014 13:26
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N)
62 of 88
41193.62
In reply to
41193.51
I don't know how you can possibly say I excuse men from shirking responsibility. What stronger language can I use to condemn men who impregnate women and do not contribute to their support? Fucksticks? Assholes? Pricks, jerkoffs wankers, pigs, whaleshit-eating scumbags? They are all that and more.
Sorry if it gets your goat so to speak and I do understand the defense of women, but it is not entirely an equal issue, to wit:
The man gets what he wants, a time of pleasure with the woman. She also is an active and eager participant. Three months later a phone call is made after which point the guy has long lost interest, perhaps. So he declines further involvement. The woman is still pregnant.
Regardless of your personal feelings on the plight of the woman and the responsibility of the man - should he not take his equal responsibility with the pregnancy - she is still pregnant and has an issue to deal with and choices to make. If he walks away, then she will make those decisions possibly alone and that may include abortion. She will have to pay for it if he doesn't. Because she is the one to suffer the most consequences of the liason (unfortunately), it is therefore more incumbent for the woman to ensure a wise decision is made. My
personal
feeling is different however than my
general
feeling on the matter. I could not and would not walk away from a situation like that because I accept personal responsibility. But I do know men, I know the statistics involved and unfortunately if the man won't take precautions the woman should. If a woman and man have sex and pregnancy results and because either they jointly or singularly(in the case of the female, he cannot force an abortion, well that would be extreme) decide then it is
de facto
birth control. There is no way on God's Green earth that a woman
or man
cannot know about the possibility of pregnancy in today's day and age.
It is a subtle and fairly nuanced difference in responsibility only because of the consequence. It should be shared responsibility but too often it is not, unless of course the woman want to foce the issue through legal remedies which would be her right, but how many women will actually do that? It does not inherently excuse the man, you are playing semantics.
See how easy it is to turn into a politically charged issue - and it only took
one word
.
For the record, I do agree with you that there is responsibility -total - on both parts. In a perfect world we don't even have this discussion because there would be no alcohol or drug-fueled or otherwise thoughtless sexual liasons with untimely consequences. But we do not live in a perfect world and people do not submit to moral issues very well which is why they end up being politically charged, They want somebody to make a decision for them and absolve them of the ramifications of their actions. Nobody wins, neither in the beginning nor in the end.
From: fixrman
17 Sep 2014 14:00
To: ANT_THOMAS
63 of 88
41193.63
In reply to
41193.53
I think your answer is as good if not better than any I might make.
Required
as in? Medically necessary for the health of the female? Please define.
Spelling was shit.
EDITED: 17 Sep 2014 14:02 by FIXRMAN
From: fixrman
17 Sep 2014 14:11
To: ANT_THOMAS
64 of 88
41193.64
In reply to
41193.58
Both morals and ethics fit in with it being a mental issue. That's where the mental aspect stems from. Also feeling of possible persecution from people who may judge the female and probably less so the male. It isn't right but I have seen it too much to know the woman often suffers more indignation than the male - even from fellow women.
The other physical problem might come in the future, There have been women, though I do not know any statistics on this at all, who have also had difficulty or found it impossible to become pregnant after having had an abortion in the past. I cannot even begin to believe how emotionally devastating that may be.
Just to be clear on it I do know two women who were unable to becaome pregnant and each had received abortions in the past. The fact that the abortion may have had little to do with their inability did little to mitigate the psycological impact. That said I would expect the incidence of that happening today is rather low.
From: ANT_THOMAS
17 Sep 2014 14:24
To: fixrman
65 of 88
41193.65
In reply to
41193.63
Required as in, the person/people in question don't want a child. Required to stop that result. To put it crudely, the last possible form of contraception.
I personally have no issue with people having abortions for whatever reason they personally deem fit. It's their bodies, their choice. The only grey area for me would be the timing after conception. This is where I'm unsure about the whole thing.
What time should be the latest it should be allowed? Is a foetus really viable if it requires 24/7 intensive care for a long period?
I've seen a few emotional blackmail type articles lately with photos of babies that have been born very very premature and died. But been born at the current UK limit for abortion (24 weeks in extreme cases I believe). They've been along the lines of "it looks like a real human so the abortion limit is too long". To me this makes no sense, the baby in question died, it wasn't viable. It may even go as far as enforcing/proving the idea that 24 weeks is fine.
Anyway, I'm not actually sure where I'm going with this, but I guess to sum up, whilst abortion should be the last resort and people in general should be more sensible when it comes to contraception I don't have a problem with people using abortion as their chosen method of "contraception".
What's your view on the morning after pill?