(September 30, 2015 at 2:15 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Irrational Wrote: It's (1) inside her body and (2) uses her bodily resources for its survival. If you respect woman's right to own her body, then you should respect her right to choose what to do with the fetus inside her body.

Again, though no has addressed if the father has a say.  This is what makes abortion so tough because of the variables involved in the decision.  That fetus is half the mother and half the father.  Let's not bring up cases of rape/incest, etc.  Lets speak strictly in terms of a consensual relationship.  The couple gets pregnant and the mother doesn't want the baby, but the father does.  Is it solely the mother's choice because she is carrying it?  It's tough.  Put yourself in the situation, if you are a man and your wife/GF/fiancee announces she's pregnant and you are over the moon excited, but then she tells you she doesn't want it.  How would you react? 

"Well right now it's just a parasite feeding off of you and it's your body"
"Just a collection of cells and it's your choice"
"I've been dying to have a child and the baby is part of me as well"

I'm not lending any credence to one response over the other as I think each situation is different and that's what makes abortion so tough to discuss because it's not an easy blanket answer for all situations.

I may well (depending on the circumstances) try to convince her to carry the child. I will not force her. Then again, I'm willing to stick around and help raise the kid. There are a lot of "daddies" out there who can't be bothered with that part who would have been terribly upset at the idea of an abortion.

Unless and until medical science comes up with a way to transfer the fetus to daddy and let him carry it, the final decision still rests with her.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Losty Wrote: When you replace std treatment instead of abortion it sounds so fucking silly......

Because it is silly.

---

(September 30, 2015 at 10:21 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: They wouldn't have to in alot of cases. I would be forced to keep it regardless due to there being no complete cure. I would also get next to no sympathy and actually suffer severe stigma.
Examples; aids, syphilis.

Syphilis is curable; it's a bacterium.

And HIV is permanent (so far) but totally treatable and suppressible with modern medications.

So, as we've said, it's like saying that because they had "consequences" of sex, the STD, they have to not have the medications to stop it from ruining their life because they "should have known better when they chose to have sex".

So the fact they would carry that for the rest of their lives is irrelevant? Have you all gone completely mental?
Its different from being pregnant and getting pregnant is a circumstance unique to women. Noones arguing against that.
But to say that, what? Its *nothing*? That it isn't worthy of being considered even remotely being in the same league?

If that person, male or female reveals their condition they will be treated negatively for the rest of their lives. I don't consider that nothing. Sorry. To say that women are the only ones who suffer the consequences of unprotected sex is just wrong. Demonstrably wrong. 
Is that really something that needs to be responded to with "Oh yeeeeah but people can see when you're pregnant." Oh cool, I'll just pop round to Africa and tell everyone theres nothing to worry about then.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Losty Wrote: When you replace std treatment instead of abortion it sounds so fucking silly......

Because it is silly.

Both are equally silly to me though

(September 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Because it is silly.

---

Syphilis is curable; it's a bacterium.

And HIV is permanent (so far) but totally treatable and suppressible with modern medications.

So, as we've said, it's like saying that because they had "consequences" of sex, the STD, they have to not have the medications to stop it from ruining their life because they "should have known better when they chose to have sex".

So the fact they would carry that for the rest of their lives is irrelevant? Have you all gone completely mental?
Its different from being pregnant and getting pregnant is a circumstance unique to women. Noones arguing against that.
But to say that, what? Its *nothing*? That it isn't worthy of being considered even remotely being in the same league?

If that person, male or female reveals their condition they will be treated negatively for the rest of their lives. I don't consider that nothing. Sorry. To say that women are the only ones who suffer the consequences of unprotected sex is just wrong. Demonstrably wrong. 
Is that really something that needs to be responded to with "Oh yeeeeah but people can see when you're pregnant." Oh cool, I'll just pop round to Africa and tell everyone theres nothing to worry about then.

I like how you completely ignored my point. If you think being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is a problem that only lasts for 10 months. You are wrong.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Because it is silly.

---

Syphilis is curable; it's a bacterium.

And HIV is permanent (so far) but totally treatable and suppressible with modern medications.

So, as we've said, it's like saying that because they had "consequences" of sex, the STD, they have to not have the medications to stop it from ruining their life because they "should have known better when they chose to have sex".

So the fact they would carry that for the rest of their lives is irrelevant? Have you all gone completely mental?
Its different from being pregnant and getting pregnant is a circumstance unique to women. Noones arguing against that.
But to say that, what? Its *nothing*? That it isn't worthy of being considered even remotely being in the same league?

If that person, male or female reveals their condition they will be treated negatively for the rest of their lives. I don't consider that nothing. Sorry. To say that women are the only ones who suffer the consequences of unprotected sex is just wrong. Demonstrably wrong. 
Is that really something that needs to be responded to with "Oh yeeeeah but people can see when you're pregnant." Oh cool, I'll just pop round to Africa and tell everyone theres nothing to worry about then.

Slow your roll, man. Nobody said women suffer the only consequences of sex; they do, however, suffer the bulk of them, to the point that the male element of it is effectively irrelevant for the point of discussions of this sort.

I say this as a person who has worked for HIV/AIDS charities and activist organizations as a volunteer for two decades, now.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The real question is when is a person a person. When sperm penetrates egg is obviously silly. And it goes on being silly for a while. A thing that can't think is not a person. When does it become a person?

Hebrews thought is was first breath. Romans thought it was when Daddy said so. Supreme Court seems to think it's when it can live outside the uterus.

I disagree that that's the real question. No person has the right to my body even if they need it to survive.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:40 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: So the fact they would carry that for the rest of their lives is irrelevant? Have you all gone completely mental?
Its different from being pregnant and getting pregnant is a circumstance unique to women. Noones arguing against that.
But to say that, what? Its *nothing*? That it isn't worthy of being considered even remotely being in the same league?

If that person, male or female reveals their condition they will be treated negatively for the rest of their lives. I don't consider that nothing. Sorry. To say that women are the only ones who suffer the consequences of unprotected sex is just wrong. Demonstrably wrong. 
Is that really something that needs to be responded to with "Oh yeeeeah but people can see when you're pregnant." Oh cool, I'll just pop round to Africa and tell everyone theres nothing to worry about then.

Slow your roll, man. Nobody said women suffer the only consequences of sex; they do, however, suffer the bulk of them, to the point that the male element of it is effectively irrelevant for the point of discussions of this sort.

I say this as a person who has worked for HIV/AIDS charities and activist organizations as a volunteer for two decades, now.

I said it could be argued that way, but he is right that I was wrong in saying that because men do have to deal with the consequences when it's an std.

But no one is trying to stop people from choosing their treatment when the consequences are stds.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:40 pm)Losty Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: So the fact they would carry that for the rest of their lives is irrelevant? Have you all gone completely mental?
Its different from being pregnant and getting pregnant is a circumstance unique to women. Noones arguing against that.
But to say that, what? Its *nothing*? That it isn't worthy of being considered even remotely being in the same league?

If that person, male or female reveals their condition they will be treated negatively for the rest of their lives. I don't consider that nothing. Sorry. To say that women are the only ones who suffer the consequences of unprotected sex is just wrong. Demonstrably wrong. 
Is that really something that needs to be responded to with "Oh yeeeeah but people can see when you're pregnant." Oh cool, I'll just pop round to Africa and tell everyone theres nothing to worry about then.

I like how you completely ignored my point. If you think being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is a problem that only lasts for 10 months. You are wrong.

At no point did I say pregnancy was anything to be considered negligible. 
Apparently its you people who think fucking *AIDS* is not worthy of being considered worthy to be graced with pregnancies presence in the "Shit I wouldn't want to happen to me" league table. Judging from the response I'd have to come up with an STD that causes the genitalia to form a thermonuclear explosion to even remotely get close.

(September 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Losty Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The real question is when is a person a person.  When sperm penetrates egg is obviously silly.  And it goes on being silly for a while.  A thing that can't think is not a person.  When does it become a person?

Hebrews thought is was first breath.  Romans thought it was when Daddy said so.  Supreme Court seems to think it's when it can live outside the uterus.

I disagree that that's the real question. No person has the right to my body even if they need it to survive.

But you realize that a fetus made no choice in being created in your body, but is a direct result of a choice you made.  (again, notwithstanding cases of rape).

(September 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Losty Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The real question is when is a person a person.  When sperm penetrates egg is obviously silly.  And it goes on being silly for a while.  A thing that can't think is not a person.  When does it become a person?

Hebrews thought is was first breath.  Romans thought it was when Daddy said so.  Supreme Court seems to think it's when it can live outside the uterus.

I disagree that that's the real question. No person has the right to my body even if they need it to survive.

We hashed this one out quite some time ago, in this thread, Jenny. 


The only question is whether or not a woman has an absolute right to bodily autonomy. The fact is that even a fully-grown adult has no more right to use her body, or to force her to put her own life at risk, to maintain that fully-grown adult life, no matter how "culpable" she is in the circumstance that placed that adult in the position to require her body to survive (I gave the example of a person whose kidneys you had damaged, and only your kidney transplanted into them could allow them to keep living). So if it is not true that an adult has a right to invade your bodily autonomy, why should we trouble ourselves with the question of when the fetus becomes viable, becomes a baby, et cetera?