Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[Autumnlicious]

Of course... my complaints would largely be solved with a maidservant... and aside from those reasons I stated I would largely enjoy children

Having someone else cook them up is still murder and you know it. Plus, there is less child to go around if you share it with a servant.

[tavarish]

He just made another article and I'll post it up here, since some of my words may be a little harsh to go on a Christian blog.

Be back in a bit.

[Violet]

Of course... my complaints would largely be solved with a maidservant... and aside from those reasons I stated I would largely enjoy children

Having someone else cook them up is still murder and you know it. Plus, there is less child to go around if you share it with a servant.

It isn't murder if it tastes good.

I would never share it with the servant... I'd pay them to cook it up and serve it to me. Since when did servants get the best of the meat?

[tavarish]

Here we go:

Last weekend, our very own Adam brought to our attention an article that was published in Australian’s Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday 5 May. The author, Ms Nina Funnell, lamented that she believes women still do not have total authority over their own bodies. There is the Pill (which, I might add, recently became 50 years old) but yet there is still no widespread abortion-on-demand in Australia. On the latter, she is of course right: in Australia, only the State of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have decriminalized abortion. In all other states and territories, abortion remains illegal in just about all circumstances. As Ms Funnell points out in her article, a 19 year old woman and her boyfriend face a possible jail term of up to seven years for procuring an abortion in the state of Queensland. She doesn’t, however, provide any reason as to why this couple sought an abortion but we are expected to feel sorry for them, regardless.

To be brief, the tone of Ms Funnell’s article is that women ought to have every right to be able to shack up with any Tom, Dick or Harry and not have to worry about those pesky things that promiscuous sexual activity has a history of causing. You know, things like unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, responsibility and accountability …?

To rid the world of this problem, and to allegedly give women total ownership over their own bodies, Ms Funnell promotes the widespread availability of:

* contraception, such as the Pill and condoms
* easy access to the morning-after pill
* abortion on demand

Well, two of these three have no guarantee of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the third only proves my point. For more than 50 years women have had access to the Pill and couples have had access to other types of contraceptives and yet society is still educating its youth about STDs and unwanted pregnancies with reduction of either. Something’s broken and it seems to me that throwing condoms and medication at the situation is doing precious little to resolve the issue. In fact, using condoms seems more like a band-aid solution to a much larger issue: an unrestrained sexual appetite.

But it is precisely an unrestrained sexual appetite that Ms Funnell believes ought to be made available to young women as an innate right. As she says, University life “is often a time of sexual experimentation” and then believes it is an unethical practice for campus pharmacists to deny young women access to emergency contraception.

Hold up, Ms Funnell. How’s about the young lasses keep their gear on? There’s nothing in the books that says every student must get their kit off when they’re at Uni. I know personal responsibility and accountability can be viewed as old fashioned, but, y’know, when employed it would preclude any notion of the desire for emergency contraception altogether.

This brings me to the title of my post as what Ms Funnell is really pleading for is the “right” for women – actually, even men – to have the freedom to get jiggy with the happy-lappy dance. In other words, she wants to have sex without consequences.

… Sex without consequences … I can’t even imagine what that would begin to look like and shudder at the thought. In fact, I don’t think it is actually possible. Even if all contraceptive forms had a 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs, there is still the physiological, emotional and social aspects that stem out of the sexual union. When sex is enjoyed under “restraint” (ie. Lifelong, committed and monogamous union, to the exclusion of all others) the aspects of pregnancy, emotion, physiology and social impacts seem to be most favorable, in my opionion.

I’m not all to sure that Ms Funnell at all knows what it is that she is truly asking for: a strictly mechanical activity? Where’s the fun in that?

Women don’t need a right to abortion on demand. Women need the respect and courage to put men back in their boxes and not give into wanton sexual desire at their own expense. (After all, men are typically the ones who get off scott-free when sexual encounters “go-wrong”.)

And, frankly, I believe the only way that can happen is to teach men to keep their zippers up and focus instead on growing up to actually become, y’know, responsible men.

Counter-culture stuff? Sure. But deep down, I’m sure that’s what most women want of their men, anyway. Am I right, ladies?

My reply (i'll be surprised if it gets posted):



"As Ms Funnell points out in her article, a 19 year old woman and her boyfriend face a possible jail term of up to seven years for procuring an abortion in the state of Queensland. She doesn’t, however, provide any reason as to why this couple sought an abortion but we are expected to feel sorry for them, regardless."

The point isn't to feel sorry for them, it's to bring to light the fact that people are willing to break the law to get this done, and criminalizing it does nothing for the society.

"To be brief, the tone of Ms Funnell’s article is that women ought to have every right to be able to shack up with any Tom, Dick or Harry and not have to worry about those pesky things that promiscuous sexual activity has a history of causing. You know, things like unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, responsibility and accountability …?"

1. Women do have the right to sleep with anyone they want as long as both parties consent.
2. At no point does accountability and personal responsibility take a backseat. People are responsible for their actions whether they like it or not.
3. You're painting a picture in which sexual discovery is some kind of wild orgy where no one has the self respect to protect themselves from its ills.

"Well, two of these three have no guarantee of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the third only proves my point."

What does that even mean? The fact that something isn't 100 percent guaranteed to prevent pregnancy means you can just throw it out? A seatbelt can't guarantee your life in a crash, but it would be foolish to drive without one. The third is an assertion that you made when referencing an argument you interpreted. It only proves your point to yourself and doesn't demonstrate that it's somehow not effective or viable as a solution to an issue.

"For more than 50 years women have had access to the Pill and couples have had access to other types of contraceptives and yet society is still educating its youth about STDs and unwanted pregnancies with reduction of either."

Education about sex is the only way for people to make informed decisions. How is that a problem? Would it be better to demonize it and scare people into not doing it?

"Something’s broken and it seems to me that throwing condoms and medication at the situation is doing precious little to resolve the issue. In fact, using condoms seems more like a band-aid solution to a much larger issue: an unrestrained sexual appetite."

I'm by no means an expert, but I've been to almost every World AIDS conference in the past 10 years, am a youth speaker at Hyacinth Aids Foundation, and have done many charitable events and fundraisers for AIDS awareness. In my experience, I've seen and heard many stories of people contracting illnesses, seen 11 year old mothers, and have counseled many inner-city children on this exact topic.

Abstinence does not work - at all. Younger people will find ways to do it, and the statistics agree. Adolescents need an outlet for the sexual tension and development their bodies go through. The only way to combat teen pregnancy is to have all options available and have a good foundation of sex education so they can make the right, informed choices.

To deny them of desires that are perfectly natural is going against the grain in the worst way possible. It teaches kids that they should dislike and deny themselves and their urges. This, coupled with lack of education on the subject, is a ticking time bomb.

"But it is precisely an unrestrained sexual appetite that Ms Funnell believes ought to be made available to young women as an innate right. As she says, University life “is often a time of sexual experimentation” and then believes it is an unethical practice for campus pharmacists to deny young women access to emergency contraception."

I agree with her. Young adults engaging in sexual activity is healthy, and to deny them contraception is a bit backwards.

Why are you all of a sudden harping on emergency contraception? I though the issue was abortion.

"Hold up, Ms Funnell. How’s about the young lasses keep their gear on?"

Yes, because it's that easy. Please be realistic.

People die in car accidents all the time, some even wearing seatbelts. Would you then say "How about you walk everywhere"? Abstinence isn't a viable solution when we're talking about the needs of people, many who don't share your ideologies and have varying stances on morality and degrees of will power.

" There’s nothing in the books that says every student must get their kit off when they’re at Uni."

And why would there be?

"I know personal responsibility and accountability can be viewed as old fashioned, but, y’know, when employed it would preclude any notion of the desire for emergency contraception altogether."

So you would actively tell young adults out of highschool not to have sex and expect it to work? Do you live on Earth?

I can say hacking your foot off is a good way to get rid of athlete's foot, but it presents more issues than solutions.

"This brings me to the title of my post as what Ms Funnell is really pleading for is the “right” for women – actually, even men – to have the freedom to get jiggy with the happy-lappy dance. In other words, she wants to have sex without consequences."

1. You saying "jiggy" makes me think you have no idea what this issue even entails.
2. It's not sex without consequences - it's the ability for people to have all options open to make an informed decision and not have to rely on back alley and criminalized practices. There's a difference.


"… Sex without consequences … I can’t even imagine what that would begin to look like and shudder at the thought. In fact, I don’t think it is actually possible."

Everything in life has a consequence.

"Even if all contraceptive forms had a 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs, there is still the physiological, emotional and social aspects that stem out of the sexual union."

And what exactly is wrong with that, given that all contraceptive forms would be 100 percent effective? At that point it's just consenting people having fun with one another with no ill side effects. I fail to see your point.

"When sex is enjoyed under “restraint” (ie. Lifelong, committed and monogamous union, to the exclusion of all others) the aspects of pregnancy, emotion, physiology and social impacts seem to be most favorable, in my opionion."

And why should your opinion be imposed on someone else's rights? Why is sex only to be enjoyed in a monogamous relationship? Who are you to make such a comparison and condemn others for doing and thinking differently?

"I’m not all to sure that Ms Funnell at all knows what it is that she is truly asking for: a strictly mechanical activity? Where’s the fun in that?"

I'll also take it you've never had sex before.

"Women don’t need a right to abortion on demand. Women need the respect and courage to put men back in their boxes and not give into wanton sexual desire at their own expense. (After all, men are typically the ones who get off scott-free when sexual encounters “go-wrong”.)"

You go girl! The only way to liberate women is to prohibit them from making decisions with their bodies! Also LOL at "put men back in their boxes", as if men are the only ones that desire sex. Sexual encounters go wrong for a multitude of reasons, again you're painting this issue black and white.

"And, frankly, I believe the only way that can happen is to teach men to keep their zippers up and focus instead on growing up to actually become, y’know, responsible men."

...because men who have sex are anything but responsible individuals. Right?

"Counter-culture stuff? Sure. But deep down, I’m sure that’s what most women want of their men, anyway. Am I right, ladies?"

No, you aren't right. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Personal accountability can be had with sexual activity, and sexual exploration doesn't equate to ignorance and disregard for self-interests just because you believe monogamy to be the best thing since sliced bread.

[tavarish]

Some more right wing talking points:

Thanks for your input tavarish. Can you clear up a couple of things for me with regard to your position?

You stated in your first comment that you personally would never have an abortion. What is it then that you personally find abhorrent with getting one yourself. Basically, why wouldn't you have one yourself?


From the arguments you presented, I conclude that you don't consider the unborn to have a "right" to life until it has been born. Right? This being your view then you must be willing to state that laws against foetal homicide are unjust. Whether it be at one month or 8 months, if the unborn is terminated outside of the mothers consent and by a doctor then the law should reflect that it not a being with rights that is terminated. Say, for example, the ex of a woman who does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years, decides to punch the woman in the stomach which results in the loss of the baby. At best a charge of assault on the mother is something you would agree with and (if you are consistent) campaign for. Certainly a charge of murder or manslaughter is not applicable.

You said "Looking like a baby adds to this already multifaceted issue, as humans have a need to necessarily impose emotions onto a being that may not have them. All it does is make the issue more complex - that's the point I was trying to illustrate in response to your question "Is the unborn an innocent human being".

Simple answer - no, but it sure can resemble one."

How can you determine definitely no when your argument is "may not have" and "it sure can resemble one" but definitely isn't. If a demolition expert is about to demolish a building and there is a chance that maybe there is someone still inside, should they still go ahead and blow it up on a maybe there isn't anyone inside?

Have you watched the video link that Mathew posted a while back?

http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/abortion-image...

I think you should be able to stomach watching this video (or something equivalent) before making a stand on the pro-abortion front. If you come back from watching this video still in support of abortion then you will get no more argument from me.

I came back with:

"You stated in your first comment that you personally would never have an abortion. What is it then that you personally find abhorrent with getting one yourself. Basically, why wouldn't you have one yourself?"

First, I'm a guy. I can't physically have one. I wouldn't want it for my partner as a means of terminating a pregnancy because there are more viable options in my opinion. Though I don't acknowledge it as another human being until it's born, it still has the potential to become one, and that should be taken into account. Abortion, in my opinion should be an option for last resort only.

"From the arguments you presented, I conclude that you don't consider the unborn to have a "right" to life until it has been born. Right?"

I don't consider the unborn to have human rights until it becomes its own entity, slight difference.

"This being your view then you must be willing to state that laws against foetal homicide are unjust. Whether it be at one month or 8 months, if the unborn is terminated outside of the mothers consent and by a doctor then the law should reflect that it not a being with rights that is terminated."

I don't understand what you're getting at. Do I think it's OK for someone to willfully terminate a pregnancy without the consent of the mother? Of course not.

The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however.

"Say, for example, the ex of a woman who does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years, decides to punch the woman in the stomach which results in the loss of the baby. At best a charge of assault on the mother is something you would agree with and (if you are consistent) campaign for. Certainly a charge of murder or manslaughter is not applicable."

Why wouldn't fetal homicide be applicable? Lots of states already have provisions for this in place and allow abortions to occur. There is a difference between having an abortion in a medical facility with a mother that consents to the act and a guy punching a pregnant woman in the stomach because he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. If you can't see the monumental difference, I don't know what else I can tell you.

"How can you determine definitely no when your argument is "may not have" and "it sure can resemble one" but definitely isn't."

'May not have' is a general statement in which humans impose emotions onto things, such as inaminate objects, animals, and other living things. I wasn't talking about specifically a fetus. In the actual case of the fetus having emotions, I would argue that there is no evidence to suggest that they have the adequate brain development to have any experiences of emotion. They barely have sensory perception in the womb.

"If a demolition expert is about to demolish a building and there is a chance that maybe there is someone still inside, should they still go ahead and blow it up on a maybe there isn't anyone inside?"

I don't understand what you're trying to assert. You're trying to argue that because someone in demolition can't 100% guarantee that someone isn't inside the building, demolition should be illegal. Does that make any sense?

Seeing if someone is inside the building is demonstrable, much like the criteria I assigned the unborn fetus, which is completely removed from a separate, human entity.

"Have you watched the video link that Mathew posted a while back?

http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/abortion-image...

I think you should be able to stomach watching this video (or something equivalent) before making a stand on the pro-abortion front. If you come back from watching this video still in support of abortion then you will get no more argument from me."

You'll have to do a bit better than to show me a bunch of aborted fetuses next to quarters being poked by tweezers. Scare tactics don't work, nor should they to anyone that has weighed the options in this issue. Putting Martin Luther King in front of it was a nice touch, but it reeked of poorly put together propaganda with a sprinkling of proselytization. It didn't show anything I didn't already understand or see firsthand.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I decline to argue with pro lifers/anti abortionists just as I decline to argue with new earth creationists. There is no common ground that I've been able to discover. Both positions are based on religious doctrines,not science:

Belief in the soul: I reject the existence of the soul due to lack of evidence.

Theists claim a fetus is a human being from conception. They present no evidence to support this claim.

I claim a fetus is human being when and only when it is viable ex utero.

My position is it's up to the theists to prove a fetus is a human being from the point of conception. I will happily change my position immediately such evidence is forthcoming.

Until that day,I have no problem with what any believing female chooses to do about her own pregnancy. I have a big problem when believers of either sex insist on imposing their personal superstitions on society about this or any other issue.

[Violet]

Of course... but what matters it even if the damn thing is human? Humans aren't so special imo... though it seems to me a waste to carry the damn thing for so long as for it to be viable outside the uterus.

I don't get it But then: I wouldn't be eccentric if I understood 'normal' people

[fr0d0]

I'm sorry I missed this. I saw a post on aristophrenium a while back and wanted someone to get involved. I've always been pro choice... but this is making me consider it. No bad thing I think (considering any argument I mean, not leaning either way).

Yeah I don't think humans are so special. Taking any life sorta raises moral questions if we like them or not. Leo posted an excellent Dawkins video interview with Peter Singer a while back ... http://atheistforums.org/thread-1320.html @ 6:07 minutes on the 2nd video (I love that blokes ideas)

Murder of course it isn't - in secular law. In perfect moral law? dunno.

To me, I don't give a rats ass at what stage it's killing. We know damn well it's terminating the life from the beginning. The question of knowing it's there or not is immaterial surely. Our intention is all that matters, and all we can know if nothing happens/ is produced surely?

Reasoning is sacrosanct here. Good reason = good reason. Some poor fukker has to live with it. Counselling should be compulsory. It must be hell to live with anyway.

[Samson]

I am Pro-Choice, but with conditions...lol


1. Anyone Woman/child who is raped/molested should always have the choice of Abortion.

2. I do not believe Abortions should be used as a form of Birth-Control
a. If the Woman has already had 3 abortions, then cut her off, unless my #1 stands into place.
b. If a Woman has had children taken by the state and 3 abortions later has occurred, then I believe a reversal tube-tie should be in order.

3. If the mother's life is in any medically subscribed danger, whatsoever, then an abortion should be available to her.

[Violet]

I'm sorry I missed this. I saw a post on aristophrenium a while back and wanted someone to get involved. I've always been pro choice... but this is making me consider it. No bad thing I think (considering any argument I mean, not leaning either way).

Yeah I don't think humans are so special. Taking any life sorta raises moral questions if we like them or not. Leo posted an excellent Dawkins video interview with Peter Singer a while back ... http://atheistforums.org/thread-1320.html @ 6:07 minutes on the 2nd video (I love that blokes ideas)

Perhaps... but why should it raise any more moral questions than moving my left toenail with the pinky finger of my left hand?

Murder of course it isn't - in secular law. In perfect moral law? dunno.

I consider it a great stretch to call killing a living, breathing human baby so much as murder any more... the alternative would be to consider killing just about any adult animal as murder (lest we draw a double standard simply because of species)... and I happen to enjoy eating my fellow adult animals on the occasion.

To me, I don't give a rats ass at what stage it's killing. We know damn well it's terminating the life from the beginning. The question of knowing it's there or not is immaterial surely. Our intention is all that matters, and all we can know if nothing happens/ is produced surely?

I agree to a large extent Intention is the larger portion by which we should judge actions, after all.

Reasoning is sacrosanct here. Good reason = good reason. Some poor fukker has to live with it. Counselling should be compulsory. It must be hell to live with anyway.

I agree.