The abortion paradox

[Minimalist]

I'm as baffled as your good self, Min. We're always told the evidence is out there, somewhere, in some vague undefined direction. It would make a nice change to see some of it, wouldn't it?

I don't expect to. Largely because one is more full of shit than the next one.

[CapnAwesome]

I think most people who despise condoms simply had problems with maintaining erection while putting one on. It is a purely psychological thing. Pills tend to kill women's libido so I highly prefer gloved love to making love to someone who is practically a pharmacologically neutered female

Where did you hear that about the pill, FFS? If the women I've been intimate with were suffering from a restricted libido, I'd have suffered death-by-sex if they hadn't been on the pill. According to you. And that's my code for "you're talking shite".

I've also never had a problem putting on a condom. I'm 43 and I've never had an erectile problem in my life, not even as a one-off "this-never-happens-honest" type of way. Hopefully I never will... touch wood. (see what I did, there?)

They drastically lessen the tactile pleasure from sex. If you've never gone bareback, you won't appreciate what you're missing. Your loss... and in a big way.

---

Yeah, there is actually no real reason for abortion to exist. There are sooo many options for birth control it baffles me how anyone becomes pregnant on accident. Even though I'm pro-choice on the basis that cells don't have rights, I feel very little sympathy for those who become pregnant 'on accident'

WTF, people...

Contraceptives sometimes fail. Sometimes, people's lust allows for "silly" decisions that have long-term (unwanted) results. People make mistakes and not always due to stupidity.

Or, sometimes, a committed relationship ends between conception and fetal viability. Should a woman be forced to take care of a child that she has no possible means of supporting, on her own?

And then there's rape.

Claiming that "there is actually no real reason for abortion to exist" is a statement that deserves derision.

Allowing your lust to overwhelm your reason is stupid. Contraceptive failure is incredibly rare, and even if it happened there is the morning after pill, if that, which is 99% effective. After that you have mifepristone, which is 98% effective. All of this can be gotten pretty easily through planned parenthood, etc. So your chances of having all the easily available forms of contraception fail are virtually nothing. To not go through that process is, yes, stupid.

Also I don't apprentice this statement "Or, sometimes, a committed relationship ends between conception and fetal viability. Should a woman be forced to take care of a child that she has no possible means of supporting, on her own?" When I said nothing of the sort, and clearly said I was pro-choice.

[genkaus]

Allowing your lust to overwhelm your reason is stupid.

Newsflash. Most of the people are stupid.

[Minimalist]

Claiming that "there is actually no real reason for abortion to exist" is a statement that deserves derision.

Yeah - because as idiotic jesus freak senate candidates have said "real rape victims don't get pregnant."

The level of hypocrisy and stupidity on the right on this issue simply never ceases to amaze me.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A fully developed human has the right to live. Those that can be considered to be not "fully" developed - such as newly borns, the retarded, the terminally ill or those in vegetative state - also have the right to live. The unborn do not have that right. How exactly did you find a middle ground between life and death?

I'm not understanding the criteria by which you distinguish between the unborn (at 8-months for example), which according to you have no rights, and the others which you believe do. As I recall you had previously expressed agreement with the idea that infanticide up to the age of 2 was permissible. Is that still the case?

[Red Celt]

Allowing your lust to overwhelm your reason is stupid.

Welcome to the human race.

Oh, and if you expect to live your life without ever making a mistake, I have a mighty big News Flash for you, indeed... and is an unwanted pregnancy just desserts if that mistake is made by a woman?

Contraceptive failure is incredibly rare, and even if it happened there is the morning after pill

The contraceptive pill doesn't always work. Short term bouts of illness can negate its effects, and do you know when you find out that there was a hole in your condom? When the woman stops menstruating. Mentioning the morning after pill makes me wonder how much life experience you actually have.

Also I don't apprentice this statement "Or, sometimes, a committed relationship ends between conception and fetal viability. Should a woman be forced to take care of a child that she has no possible means of supporting, on her own?" When I said nothing of the sort, and clearly said I was pro-choice.

And you also clearly said "there is actually no real reason for abortion to exist". And it was that statement that I was deriding, not your proclaimed pro-choice stance.

---

The level of hypocrisy and stupidity on the right on this issue simply never ceases to amaze me.

And in this thread.

[Cyberman]

Allowing your lust to overwhelm your reason is stupid.

No, it's human. There's an old saying which is probably not suitable for everyone so if easily shocked and/or offended please cover your eyes. Good to go? Right.

The old saying is "A standing cock knows no conscience" and I'm guessing that the same holds for, um, hungry ladyparts. (Incidentally, there's a similar one along the lines of "When the prick is up, reason flies out the window.") I'm making no excuses for irresponsible behaviour in the sexual arena but in the heat of the moment, with the whistle about to signal for kick-off, even summoning up enough presence of mind to find, let alone use, a condom can sometimes be a Herculean task.

I hope no-one tries to spin this into a defense for rape, which is all-too often a power/dominance thing anyway rather than purely a lust issue. I speak as one who has supported victims of the crime.

[genkaus]

I'm not understanding the criteria by which you distinguish between the unborn (at 8-months for example), which according to you have no rights, and the others which you believe do.

I told you already. Whether it can survive without the mother or not.

As I recall you had previously expressed agreement with the idea that infanticide up to the age of 2 was permissible. Is that still the case?

Was that ever the case? I don't recall. What I do say is that they shouldn't be given all the rights afforded to "fully developed humans" and as a matter of fact, they aren't.

[festive1]

I'm not understanding the criteria by which you distinguish between the unborn (at 8-months for example), which according to you have no rights, and the others which you believe do.

I told you already. Whether it can survive without the mother or not.

Well, we haven't established what medical means are to be gone to in order to keep those born prematurely alive. A baby born at 24 weeks gestation has a 50% chance of survival, but that's with round the clock advanced medical care, and the child that survives rarely does so without significant long-term problems.

[genkaus]

Well, we haven't established what medical means are to be gone to in order to keep those born prematurely alive. A baby born at 24 weeks gestation has a 50% chance of survival, but that's with round the clock advanced medical care, and the child that survives rarely does so without significant long-term problems.

That decision would be up to the the person who has then taken up the responsibility of caring for the child. They'd be the ones paying for it after all.