Abortion

[Supercommunist]

In all other circumstances, you took the risk of having a baby when you decided to have some fun sex. Simply, it boils down to killing a human to avoid the discomfort of a pregnancy you chose to risk.

What if the condom broke while they had sex, and the two aren't finanically stable enough to care for a child?

Degrading aspect arises when a woman wants to have a relationship but experiences failures before finding out the right one for her, sometimes her young years get wasted in this kind of process.

I think the only one who was the right to decide whether someone is wasting their life, is themselves. Unless we're talking about a homeless heroin junkie in denial...

She ends up having sex with multiple men in this manner, just like a prostitute.

I personally don't see anything wrong with a woman being a nympho(not sure if thats a deragtory term or not), as long as their not spreading diseases around. This also applies to men btw.

Some men dump her after having sex with her, excuse is often lack of so-called sexual compatibility.

Well what about woman who are married to shallow husbands who cheat behind their backs? Bad choices can be made in any sort of relationship, not just unmarried ones.

Sometimes, a woman ends up co-habiting with a man who doesn't marries her even after span of many years.

And what is exactly wrong with that?

This is barbaric culture and sheer exploitation of sexuality of women.

And what if its the woman who is deciding whether her and her boyfriend should get married or not? Is the man then being exploited? And what about gay and lesbian relationships? Are they exploiting one another by having sex before marriage?

Humans came with the concept of marriage to prevent sexual exploitation of women at the hands of men long ago. A culture was established to ensure that a man must take responsibility for a woman with whom he have sexual relations. This tradition worked/works best for both individuals and society in general. Sex outside wedlock sounds fun and exciting but this development is degrading to women's sexuality.

Two words, the Bible.

Also, women will behave according to societal conditioning. If they are raised to value their bodies, they will not have sex outside wedlock.

I don't know about that, I know a lot of female highschool students with overprotective parents, yet most of them aren't virgins anymore.

[theropod]

What if the condom broke while they had sex, and the two aren't finanically stable enough to care for a child?

Then why not put the baby up for adoption?
The contraceptive failing is the risk that comes with having sex, a risk that is taken willingly because it is worth it (unless the whole action is against the will of one of the participants, in which case it is rape. In that case I think one could argue that having to carry out a child resulting from rape could be too grave a psychological problem for the woman, but I think that is extremely hard for anyone else to judge.).

If the child is put up for adoption afterwards a pregnancy alone doesn’t have to ruin anyone’s life.

[coherentsheaf]

theropod, n love for me?

[theropod]

Oops, sorry, I was going to get back to you this noon but I was at school and must have forgot to press "post".

I didn’t mean to compare the historical treatment of women to that of slaves. Throughout history, many parts of societies have lacked personal freedom to some degree, for example peasants in feudal systems were also usually a sort of property of, and dependant on, their landlord.
I also did not intend to discuss women’s social talents or the reasons thereof.

Just frankly, in most historical societies men where the decision makers and women where expected to follow (primarily their husbands), exceptions notwithstanding. So I would hardly consider it likely that the main intention behind marriage was to protect women from exploitation (because it did not do so), more likely it was simply administrative in purpose.

Also, claiming that sex out of marriage equals prostitution is just plain disregarding the definition of prostitution.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 18, 2014 3:29:57 GMT 5 theropod said:

I didn’t mean to compare the historical treatment of women to that of slaves. Throughout history, many parts of societies have lacked personal freedom to some degree, for example peasants in feudal systems were also usually a sort of property of, and dependant on, their landlord.

And some of these arrangements can probably be described as slavery. This does not mean that calling the general status of women akin to property throughout history is nothing but a complete misrepresentation, and unfortunately common among left leaning conservatives.

I also did not intend to discuss women’s social talents or the reasons thereof.

Both their social talents and the social advantages and disadvantages of their gender role are vitally important when you want to address the historic dynamics of power.

Just frankly, in most historical societies men where the decision makers and women where expected to follow (primarily their husbands), exceptions notwithstanding.

Yes there was a powerful elite that made decision and the majority of this elite was male. This does not change much about the individual social standing and power of the vast majority of the population. Similarly today, the most powerful man in the USA is black. This does not change one iota about the poor social standing of the black population.

So I would hardly consider it likely that the main intention behind marriage was to protect women from exploitation (because it did not do so), more likely it was simply administrative in purpose.

Well marriage has a wide variety of functions. It is hard to me to pin down what they all are. I think making claims that it was for administrative purposes, which seems a modern secular conception of marriage, ignores many historical facets and so does saying that it protects women from exploitation, which seems to be a modern sexist and puritanical notion.

Also, claiming that sex out of marriage equals prostitution is just plain disregarding the definition of prostitution.

I think this not addressed to me as I have never said and presumably would never say anything of that kind . It is always amusing for me to discuss self described leftists or right wingers online since they rarely are able to emulate my position (well utilitarian transhumanists are not that common and few of them have built political philosophies out of this stance) and generalize me as either some leftist loon or conservative. I am neither to be sure, except for the loon part maybe.

[theropod]

I was not adressing you with that sentence.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 18, 2014 17:17:42 GMT 5 theropod said:

I was not adressing you with that sentence.

Who else? Guate is only moderately likely to read trough the totality of our exchange and it was clearly written in the context of an answer to my post.

[creature386]

I guess he adresses a quote in Supercommunist's comment.

[theropod]

Yes, the part about "…reduces her to prostituion levels…"

[Supercommunist]

Then why not put the baby up for adoption?

Don't see why the woman has to go through the pain of a pregnancy for an unborn baby she doesn't want. Besides its not like foster homes are fun places to be in.

If the child is put up for adoption afterwards a pregnancy alone doesn’t have to ruin anyone’s life.

What if the woman was a professional athlete and discovered she was a month pregnant at a critical point in her career? And I don't see how having an abortion is ruining anyones life as a fetus lacks a conscious.

From what I see I am pretty much the only person that has expressed their opinion here whose completetly pro-choice. I have a feeling this may be attributed to the fact that this forum is predominantly male...

[blaze]

I'm also completely pro-choice Supercommunist but I just don't like talking about these topics online so I limited myself to only reading the thread.

[theropod]

Don't see why the woman has to go through the pain of a pregnancy for an unborn baby she doesn't want.

That’s the price to pay to save a life, its as if you thought that wasn’t worth it. But in fact, creating a life is certainly among the things that are most worth it.

Besides its not like foster homes are fun places to be in.

I was talking about adoption, not foster homes. Those are two fundamentally different things. And then maybe its the foster homes that should get better, not killing the child that should be more socially accepted.

What if the woman was a professional athlete and discovered she was a month pregnant at a critical point in her career?

That certainly is not the case in the vast majorities of abortions. But then they should have been more careful I’d say, for example by using contraceptives…

And I don't see how having an abortion is ruining anyones life as a fetus lacks a conscious.

That’s not the point, the point is that one could avoid taking an innocent life without ruining another life in the process. Of course a pregnancy is always an inconvenience, but that’s a price people should be willing to pay.
One could certainly say it is ruining the fetus’ life, after all it’s killing it. The fetus is only a few months away from being born. Would you want to kill that baby after it is born, just because it cannot object?
I think abortion is so common because women are deceiving themselves about what’s going on inside them, ironically because they cannot see it they can’t really relate to it.

And aren’t you confusing fetus with embryo? How do you know how much conscience it has?

From what I see I am pretty much the only person that has expressed their opinion here whose completetly pro-choice. I have a feeling this may be attributed to the fact that this forum is predominantly male...

You are forgetting about leopjag.

[Supercommunist]

I'm also completely pro-choice Supercommunist but I just don't like talking about these topics online so I limited myself to only reading the thread.

Cool. Nice to know that I'm not the only one.

Don't see why the woman has to go through the pain of a pregnancy for an unborn baby she doesn't want. That’s the price to pay to save a life, its as if you thought that wasn’t worth it.

An undeveloped life, that has the potential to become human. Just my sperm has the potential to create a person, but that doesn't compel me to stop beating off.

I was talking about adoption, not foster homes. Those are two fundamentally different things.

Foster homes typically are where children are adopted.

that certainly is not the case in the vast majorities of abortions.

Maybe not the proffesional athlete scenario, but the case where a woman has to choose between aborting or losing a job she sorely needs is still there.

But then they should have been more careful I’d say.

Thats easy to say when your not the one thats pregnant, and financially unstable. Rearing a child is extremely expensive.

That’s not the point, the point is that one could avoid taking an innocent life without ruining another life in the process. Of course a pregnancy is always an inconvenience, but that’s a price people should be willing to pay.

An unwanted pregnancy can be far more than just an inconvenience, it can lead to financial ruin and in the case of teens disownment. And if a woman is really desperate you can't really stop her from undergoing a riskier back alley abortion can you?

One could certainly say it is ruining the fetus’ life, after all it’s killing it. The fetus is only a few months away from being born. Would you want to kill that baby after it is born, just because it cannot object?

A baby actually has cognitive functions and some awareness, a fetus doesn't. You're pretty much comparing eggs and chicks, similar, but totally diffrent things.

I think abortion is so common because women are deceiving themselves about what’s going on inside them, ironically because they cannot see it they can’t really relate to the child.

I think abortion is so common because women are deceiving themselves about what’s going on inside them, ironically because they cannot see it they can’t really relate to the child.

Instead of projecting your opinions onto woman who desire abortions, I think we should give them a benefit of a doubt and assume most of them are doing so for good reason.

And aren’t you confusing fetus with embryo? How do you know how much conscience it has?

From what I read its capable of tasting and hearing in its late stages, not much cognitive awareness if you ask me.

You are forgetting about leopjag.

Unless leopjag is an account used by twenty diffrent woman, this forum consists mostly of males.

[ultimatedinoking95]

I don't want to start a huge moral debate, but technically, the fetus is a living thing. it has blood vessels and nerves, the heart is beating, and close to birth it can even dream! so why do people go on about saying your only living once you pass through the vagina, or in some cases, a C-section?

[Vodmeister]

What kind of a sick, disgusting, psychopathic, twisted, f*cked up in the head woman is this?



www.youtube.com/watch?v=uax-FrhOioY


She actually struggles to answer whether or not a woman should have the right to kill a born baby.


I'm actually in favor of abortion in early months, but this is not abortion, it's cold-blooded murder.


Why not give women the right to kill their children (regardless of age) altogether, eh?