Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Abortion and Women's Rights

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-26 22:10

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

Name: Xel 2006-09-03 8:24

"So pregnant women have property rights, but businessmen and the rich do not." I won't deny my wants are hypocritical. "Its more like a building.  The foundation is the right to live." Nah.
"I think the fact that you would sacrifice the right to life of 15,500 babies a year in the name of allowing women to remove something that their actions could have prevented from becoming a problem to begin with makes you diabolical." The situation is not plausible, but if one tied my hands and had to make a choice I would still have to choose the women's side. I don't care if they could have prevented the pregnancy, because there are many logistical factors that apply.
"They made a decision, and the result of said decision is that it is there.  They baby had no decision, but I guess this doesn't matter to you, since you think nobody is responsible for anything, its all the environment's fault." Never said its the environments fault, I am saying that the environment can't be forgotten if one wants to improve society.
"Are you going to refute my statement, or just critisize me for using offensive language?" I am argumenting that likening a human to an animal is for people with mullets.
"I guess a small fraction of them decides it isn't their responsibility to keep themselves from getting pregnant if they don't wish to be pregnant.  This isn't rocket science, if they don't want to be pregnant, tell the guy to wear a condom, and use a couple different methods of contraceptives to prevent the pregnancy.  They didn't do this, and now they are pregnant.  I have no sympathy for them and their stupidity/irresponsibility." This completely overlooks cultural factors, even though I agree.
"The fetus is brought about by the actions of the person in question." The embryo is. But I guess that is an unneccesary specification. What I am saying is that a society that makes clinics rare, people sexually immature and selfish, allows pharmacists to treat diploids like newborns, women dependent on men both emotionally and financially, does nothing to stem the flow of alcohol among kids, prevents good sex-ed, allows medicine costs to skyrocket and promotes a world-view where male promiscuity is promoted shouldn't be that shocked when some abortions don't occur quick enough.
"Well, tell me when you have solid proof, and I'll listen :)." Ever heard of "Little Emotional Albert"? Pavlov? That is what I am talking about - behavioral psychology.
"That sounds reasonable.  However, I absolutely reject this 'i'm not responsible for my actions, its not my fault, blame something else!' kindof attitude, and don't buy it until I see real proof of said theory." This isn't about blaming, this is recognizing that a society can't implement policies without recognizing the effects. If abstinence-only education causes more pregnancies, is it really that clever to punish the individuals?

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List