I suppose you believe that if you are a man you should remain silent on the subject?
As if there is not a widespread societal impact from these decisions that do ultimately impact everyone regardless of gender.
Also, lacking the capacity to experience something doesn’t preclude one from having the capacity to empathise.
There are many examples of this I could point out. Situations where one person couldn’t possibly experience what the other person is going through but often opinion is provided and seldom are they critiqued the way men are for their opinions on abortion.
I’ve shared enough of my viewpoint it should be crystal clear. And it is clear you’ve read my posts.
But what do you think?
You do a lot of criticising/antagonising but seldom share your actual opinion.
I am keen to know what zecarlo thinks on the subject.
Sure I could probably deduce what your opinion is based off your posts. But honestly you’ve posted many things that are not congruent with what I would have assumed to be your world view.
So much so that I think you post just for the sake of stirring the pot sometimes.I wouldn’t be so bold as to assume what zecarlo’s views might be unless you’ve explicitly stated it.
Incapable is a stretch/quasi insult. I am fully capable of perceiving your viewpoints and I believe they have merit. That being said, I don’t agree with them.
You are aware this GENERALLY isn’t how abortions are performed (Dialation and evacuation makes up a very small percentage of abortions). I’m not going to go into the mechanisms by which abortion can be performed as you’ve stated this is an emotionally charged topic for you and I don’t wish to upset anyone.
I can understand your frustration and anger. Let’s put this in perspective though. You state this woman was an alcoholic, a slave to her vice. Chances are the baby would’ve been born afflicted by some form of fetal alcohol disorder. Quality of life would be seriously impinged for the child. Serious, potentially lethal birth defects also come into play and all of this assumes the baby survives the pregnancy to begin with. At which point, it isn’t entirely irresponsible for the woman to seek an abortion.
You can’t “just stop drinking” if you are an alcoholic. Alcohol withdrawals are some of the most severe and dangerous known to mankind. Seizures, tremors, autonomic dysfunction, nausea/vomiting, mood swings and more. You can take benzodiazepines to ward off withdrawal during acute detox, but even benzodiazepines have a correlation with the development of minor birth defects during the first trimester of pregnancy. It’s interesting how pro-prohibition you are due to varying vices being “pro-death” yet you don’t advocate for the prohibition of alcohol; one of the most destructive, “pro-death” substances within our society.
If we go by average full-stop. Getting married, having sex = done, one partner (at least by the constructs you prefer). The average age for one to lose their virginity in Australia is 17, the average male will go on to find a few more partners prior to settling down. Sexual CV = more than one partner
I can provide data as to why abortion under certain circumstances may be preferable. Statistics associated with drug use during pregnancy, conditions/child abuse case reports within orphanages, child neglect associated with improper resources required to take care of a child etc. There are a multitude of factors wherein actually having the child may result in exactly what you are afraid of, growing up parentless and/or in horrid conditions under the confines of a broken home. People should use contraception, however plenty of people are… erm… stupid for lack of a better word. If the child is potentially endangering the life of the mother, I’d prioritise the mothers life over that of an unborn child. Reference
We should also talk about the prospect of back alley abortions and the potential health complications associated with them.
Granted, I have no problem with women going in for an abortion even if I don’t believe the reason is of adequate merit.
It is pivotal to realise procuring a abortion is frequently a psychologically straining and potentially traumatising process for the woman at hand. This isn’t a decision to take lightly, thus we shouldn’t be to quick to snap judgements at those who do decide to terminate a pregnancy. As @mnben87 has stated Roe V Wade (SCOTUS case) came to the conclusion a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy is protected under the 14th amendment of the US constitution.
I’d also argue the neuroanatomical compartments required for a foetus to be aware of it’s surroundings and/or feel pain only develops at around 26-30 weeks in (https://jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429). Can you argue an individual is a fully-formed lifeform if they’ve hardly developed a conscious? @oglebee@mnben87@zecarlo
Because assuming is weak. You’re not weak are you?
Let women control their bodies. If abortion is a sin, then it’s between them and God.
Life is sacred is nonsense. I eat meat. Even fruits and vegetables are alive. Human life is scared? Tell that to a lion or bear as it eats you. How many exceptions have we made for justifying killing people? It’s ok to drop bombs on a city because it’s war but what about the children who are killed? What about the pregnant women who are killed? If people viewed those who have already been born as having the same value as the unborn, then maybe I would take pro lifers seriously.
The hormonal alterations present during pregnancy would be very difficult for a male to replicate. The psychiatric strain associated with getting an abortion/after pregnancy (PPD) would also be very difficult for a male to replicate, let alone understand.
Also, I haven’t forgotten about my promise, a detailed response will come later today/tonight.
I am only speaking on the legality of abortion. Just want to make that clear. I think the court was consistent with the constitution, and our current laws with their ruling in Roe? I think this because there is no example of law in which right to life supercedes bodily autonomy. There isn’t any law in the US in which a person is required to give up bodily autonomy (in a scope anything comparable to pregnancy) because someones life is dependent on it. This is regardless of how long the dependent person would live, or how long the other person would be inconvenienced.
So my question is if we don’t require it (requiring people to give up bodily autonomy) in any other situation, why should we in this situation go against the constitution, and violate bodily autonomy? Doing so would be inconsistent with the law, right?
Effectively you are saying I cannot have an opinion because I cannot possibly fathom what it must be like since I am a man.
But I can have an opinion and it is not totally invalid either.
Obviusly it effects women directly. And obviously I make that concession. But the ramifications are felt societally.
Also,
I am weak. In so many ways. But I like to think I am strong in just as many ways.
Yeah sure.
For the record. I do not believe the Judeo Christian God actually exists. But I have a strong appreciation for the faith and where it has brought us and I am not entirely certain where we are headed is better than where we were/are at.
Why is it nonsense?
I don’t think it is.
So.
I value certain life over other life. I would kill every fucking dog in the world if someone in my family was sick and it meant saving them.
I value human life over all other life.
I wouldn’t kill other things with reckless abandon or for sport. But their I have a hierarchal value system and human life is on the top of it.
Yeah well. We humans are a bit different than lions. Don’t you think?
Well we are tribalists at our core.
So we can drop bombs on cities and kill innocents and that be bad. But it doesn’t change the fact that abortion might also be bad too.
Being flawed doesn’t mean you give up trying to improve.
It is a complicated subject.
People don’t value out group individuals the same way as they do in group individuals.
So in most these instances of dropping bombs it is dropping bombs on out group peoples. They are othered.
It is complicated and I don’t feel like fleshing that out at the moment.
It is not the same sort of dilemma as abortion. In my opinion at least.
I am against abortion because I think it reflects a general type of moral decay. A move from the basic value systems of humanity. A move which I think will facilitate the demise of the society I currently live in. Civilisation is not likely to go away. But the one I am in may. And I don’t want that.
I want to live in a society that values human life and that values the unborn. Views them as innocent.
If they fall pregnant they consider this innocence. And decide to make do as best they can.
I also believe people should try their best to avoid becoming pregnant out of wed lock.
I think abiding by conservative values is a good way to do this.
If only the Founders had the gift of foresight that they might have extended rights to the unborn.
So we amend the laws.
Like the 13th amendment.
Is this thread titled “Jurisprudence Catch All”.
I think its titled Religion Catch All.
I have went to great length to answer this question at least half a dozen times.
Because, in my opinion at least, they got it wrong.
They fucked up.
Just like how they fucked up by not having blacks be free in 1776 and waited until 1863.
Which is why I brought up this:
I am taking a moral dilemma. Regardless of law.
And I am trying to come to a conclusion based upon which I think is the better path.
There might not be a right answer.
It is similar, but not really, to the Trolly problem.
There is a train and if left alone on course will run over five people attached to the tracks.
But you alone know this and you have the option to pull a lever to switch paths. But when you do so there is one person tied up to the tracks. So by doing something. Like pulling the lever. You condemn that person to death but the other five live.
I think that situation is similar in the sense when trying to weigh the two options you try to determine which is worse than the other.
That is what I have done with abortion.
It is an ethical dilemma and I don’t think the courts are right on that one.
It sounds as if our disagreement stems from agreeing with all aspects or the interpretation of the 14th amendment. That is fine. I’m not really interested in arguing the morality of it, just if it should be legal or not. I think they got it right based on the constitution. You don’t have to agree there, as you could think the 14th is wrong or interpreted incorrectly.
I think the 14th is in error, but really only in regards to dead people. I don’t think they should get bodily autonomy rights if we could use their organs to save someone else, but I don’t consider a dead person to be a person.
What about the concept of back alley abortions? They’re not particularly uncommon within countries that have instated strict laws revolving around reproductive rights.
From an ethical context one can be against abortion, but downstream consequence associated with legislation effectively banning abortion may supersede the ethical dilemma associated with abortion.
I believe maintaining the status quo through enforcing rigorously conservative philosophy leads to scientific/technological stagnation as acceptance towards new and exciting ideas/traditions is inherently blunted.
It appears much of this philosophy catering towards the belief ‘moral decay is destroying our society’ stems from fear of change. Reminds me of the “violent video games create violent criminals” craze.
You’ve stated you’re an atheist. If I may ask have you come to a conclusion as to why everything is ‘the way it is’? What precipitated the Big Bang and associated string of chain reactions that led to us being here today? Do you believe in an omnipresent force beyond our comprehension or do you simply believe it’s all chance?
This reply space is for my designated response that I promised @oglebee I’d make. It’ll come in portions as I’m not sure I have enough time to write it all up today
Statistically when you look at maternal health outcomes. Countries that have strict laws governing termination tend to have poorer maternal health out comes.
It is probably because women pursue these back alley abortions. They tend to not be the safest choice.
Yeah. I agree with you.
But what about the downstream consequences of living in a society that no longer values life. So many people are incredibly blasé in regards to the idea of getting an abortion. So disconnected from the fact that this would be a person. I don’t like that. I think it is wrong. I don’t want to live in a place like that.
I don’t think abortion should be banned. I just wish people valued life more. As I’ve said before I think this disregard for the unborn is reflective of over all moral decay of society.
It should be a balance. Progressive ideology isn’t always progress.
I feel like brickhead has shared a lot of information on this. I wish I had the time to search for it.
Also, I don’t think it is fear from change. Where do you get that from?
I don’t know about creating violent criminals. But you can’t deny it does have an impact.
Oh man. I don’t have nearly the intellect required to tackle such questions.
Sure there is definitely an omnipresent force. Gravity is omnipresent. Maybe there is an even grander force that we know nothing about yet.
To get kinda lame on you. I used to think our existence was the universes attempt to understand itself. We are after all made of star dust right.
To be honest. I am lost in the sauce. I can’t even remember what you were responding to. Something about you citing scientific fact but not citing anything. Right? Haha. Don’t stress mate. Also, You tend to write a lot and my old eyes struggle to read walls of text. So maybe if your gonna respond give me the cliff notes version.
Despite the lack of faith I have in humanity I’d like to think people aren’t going to forgo contraception just because “I can get an abortion”. Aside from sociopathic/psychopathic subtypes, the average woman will probably find getting an abortion to be an arduous, psychologically straining process. It certainly wouldn’t be a first line decision (emergency contraceptive etc as better immediate alternatives)
Agreed, but talking about regressing to living under the pretence of theocratic rule and/or potentially reinventing society to repress homosexuality, societal vice etc we are talking about primarily conservative ideology.
The spur in frequency of casual relations due to the emergence of widely available methods for contraception, newfound tolerance and normalcy regarding homosexuality, LGBTQI rights etc aren’t inherently new constructs, but within the timeframes of our lifespan they are unforeseen commodities initiated through societal progression.
Within relation to vices such as drug use, the majority of psychotropic drugs developed and used (in large numbers might I add) within today’s society are relatively new. Despite some being relatively harmless with occasional use we’ve had a hysterical, blatant over-reaction leading to a ham fisted war on drugs that has resulted in more harm than good as substances like cannabis, LSD etc have been lumped together with the likes of crack cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. Resentment towards reforming these laws is inherently a fear of chance, a fear the sky will fall and society will consist of drugged out college dropouts chasing purple elephants in the streets. Data doesn’t back this, yet there is tremendous pushback towards sensible reform.
The hysteria over video games, graphic content in movies/the media stems from fear of change regarding our ease of access to purportedly degenerate material (I’ll touch more on this later). There is literature to back both sides of the argument, but generally speaking “no, the sky doesn’t fall”. A purely conservative body of thought however would have you believing otherwise.
Arguments against gun control tend to be about fear of change, fear of tyranny etc. People like to be enveloped within the confines of rigid structural paridigms, change isn’t a prospect many tolerate with ease (myself included). The idea of having to adapt to new normalities brings on anxiety for many, it’s far easier to simply reject purported new normalities or concepts you don’t understand. It’s easy to stay safe and sheltered within a religious community, a routine lifestyle and oppose any relevant change that directs away from your solidified narrative.
It isn’t fear all change. Plenty of change and innovation has been great.
What I do have a problem with is the results of some change. As you have seen, progressives routinely gaslight. That’s why they often use the words fear and scared so frequently. They want to portray the “conservative” (usually a liberal that drives in the speed lane) as nuts and scared of what is proposed, often ignoring that there are things in this world you should be damn scared of.
Anyone remember that goofus who wanted to evangelize a primitive tribe near India who haven’t even seen a computer and got speared to death a few years ago? He wasn’t scared.
The two Scandinavian “independent” women who roamed Moroccan mountains and cut their heads cut off. They weren’t scared.
Much of this stems from arrogance, the belief that seldom do things go wrong and there will be no wrong or there is none, which many Americans have a great deal of. I once sarcastically said that if nuclear warheads were headed to America, some would still say, “Not happening. This is America.”
It’s actually not that easy to resist change either considering in many cases it actually takes some heavy thought, research, and digging rather than blindly going with the flow, like sheep.
@oglebee yes, I have gone over many times the results of the sexual revolution. You’d think broken homes and bastard children would strike a chord with some people, if not the other effects.
If you are referring to my posts above you are using the term “gaslighting” incorrectly. Gaslighting refers to a form of psychological manipulation as a means to make an individual doubt his/her own mental health and wellbeing. Rather progressives tend to make snap judgements and resort to straw man arguments to drive their point home when arguing with opposing political factions.
Should be noted under modern societal definitions I neither fit the bill for “progressive” or a “conservative”.
no… it doesn’t. Are you calling me out for being arrogant? If so… this is a civil discourse. Not the time or place for insults.
No, but I can’t fathom why an individual would decide to do this. What good could possibly come of this?
Anyhow, I shall start my discourse regarding the decay of our moral fabric.
In terms of societal detriment and/or the destruction of our moral fundamentals, the prime variable one can review is vice. Drug use, prostitution, casual relations, pornography; all vices and variables colloquially associated with degeneracy. In an acute context spanning over years/decades, what are the societal outcomes regarding various differing policy enactments? Is conservative tradition the way to go? Or is progressive reform potentially aiding public health outcomes as opposed to decimating societal constructs and creating the downfall of our species as we know it.
Casual relations, it has been said through our resident competitive bodybuilder @BrickHead licentiousness leads to significant psychosocial ramifications, particularly within the adolescent demographic. We have a body of data to review as to ascertain a scientific consensus as to whether premarital relations and even casual relations (i.e., FWB) significantly impede the generalised health and wellbeing within adolescent and young adult demographics.
An analysis of 1311 diverse, sexually active young adults published within the PSRH (perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive health), a journal consisting of peer reviewed research aimed to ascertain as to whether rates of sexual behaviour, or lack thereof had a measurable impact on individualistic psychological wellbeing. Important cliffnotes @oglebee
1/5th of participants reported their most recent sexual encounter was of a casual nature (described as being with a casual acquaintance or nonexclusive partner)
Casual relations were more commonly reported amongst male participants
Scores of psychological wellbeing were consistent across all categories
No significant (p = greater than 0.05) associations between the nature of relations and perceived wellbeing were found after being adjusted for covariables
The nature of relations was determined via categorical variables consisting of casual acquaintance, close but nonexclusive partner, exclusive dating partner and fiancé/spouse and/or equivalent.
Conclusion “Those in casual relationships do not appear to be at increased risk for harmful psychological outcomes”
Another prospective paper published within the CIHR ‘Consequences of Casual Sex Relationships on Adolescents Psychological Well-Being” looks at the psychosocial ramifications present amongst adolescents as opposed to young adults (mean age of 15 as opposed to 20 within the first study). The subjects are also Canadian god dammit! The study aims to determine whether an association exists between the nature/existence of sexual activity within adolescents and depressive symptoms, psychosocial aberrations and rates of illicit and licit drug use.
40.7% of adolescents had engaged in at least one casual encounter within the past twelve months
34.3% had at least one FWB relationship
Only a statistical minority had engaged in a one-night stand
Results? FWB relationships/One-night stands were associated with a decrease in psychological wellbeing and an increase in drug use (both licit and illicit), but only for girls and the decrease/increase was extremely minute, albeit statistically significant.
Results are indicative non penetrative one-night stands associated with sexual touching/intimacy appear to have a greater impact on the psychosocial wellbeing as compared to penetrative one-night stands “Our results did not support the third hypothesis that penetrative CSREs are associated with a greater decrease in psychological well-being than non-penetrative CSREs are. Indeed, we found that sexual touching in the context of ONSs has a more detrimental impact on girls’ psychological well-being, with the strongest association with psychological distress and an increase in drug use.”
Conclusion? “CSREs do not dramatically decrease psychological well-being, they do not increase it either.”
Another study (could only find abstract)
“using 714 twins (357 twin pairs) from the sibling subsample of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Results indicated that there was no causal relationship between casual sex in adolescence and higher levels of depressive symptoms or suicidal ideation in young adulthood, and these effects did not differ by gender.”
Tomorrow I’ll discuss and link evidence regarding my opinions on societal consequence or lack thereof stemming from pornography, prostitution, drug use, gambling etc. This only seems fitting if we are to discuss the decay of our societal morale and potential downstream ramifications
Well the majority cater towards ‘going with the flow’ and are not particularly dedicated towards any political affiliation. In Aus the average citizen knows very little about politics or the proceeds/the ‘in’s and outs of out legal system’. To call the average citizen a sheep would be insulting, rather I believe most simply haven’t given it any thought. Through a superficial lens political decision making doesn’t play that big of a role in the lives of the average Australian citizen (using Aus as an example).
Why not? You look fantastic in your avatar. At the very least you can say “I’ve competed in a bodybuilding competition”. That’s a hell of an accomplishment, 99.99% of men probably couldn’t say the same.