A little bit inappropriate but yes, you understand my ideology
Was a bit more aimed at kneedraggers brilliant plan to solve the issue by only having sex when ready to have children.
Fair enough. And I fully agree, sexuality is a natural part of human nature, itâs engrained within our biology. I understood the joke, but I thought it was slightly inappropriate and/insensitive. People can harbour their own ideologies regarding this subtopic, there are few political ideologies that stir up as much controversy and differing ideologies within the human populace when compared to abortion/reproductive rights.
That being said Iâm not particularly fond of abortion jokes, I understand humour is used to lighten a serious situation, and I enjoy the humour (albeit very crass, crude and dark) in South Park pertaining to abortion, however this falls under the realm of absurdity
At times humour to prove how absurd a situation point can reasonate with audiences, but it can also do the opposite, pushing opponents further away.
Primitive contraceptives have been dated back to around 1850 BC (Egyptians)⊠the pessary (object inserted into the vagina to block the transmission of sperm to Fallopian tubes) though condoms, perhaps comprised of animal hide have been dated as far back as 3000 BC! Though itâs unclear whether they were used for ritualistic sex or contraception
The Greeks used anal sex as a pregnancy deterrent (hence it being referred to the Greek method by some)
To expect us to wait til marriage because âreligionâ and if we fall pregnant accidentally âtough shitâ⊠I donât agree with said ideology at all. I donât have a problem with teenagers having consensual sex either. Many say âtheyâre kids, they arenât ready, canât make their own decisionsâ etc
Maturity is a spectrum, especially pertaining to teenagers when pubertal, neurological development can DRAMATICALLY differ from one fifteen year old to another⊠I donât think itâs up to an adult to police an act such as sexual intercourse, and those whose parents do try to police said act (from my observations) tend to have very sneaky kids⊠stopping a teenager from having sex isnât protecting the child⊠in my opinion itâs protecting the parent for fear theyâre losing said child⊠thatâs just my opinion
Sure, there are emotional implications, especially when both parties arenât on the same page regarding whatever relationship may or may not be at stake⊠however protecting youâre child from these implications in my opinion prevents him/her from actually growing up, being able to handle later scenarios. Whilst a teenager may not have the best emotional stability/ability to make rational decisions⊠relationships, the pain involved etc is part of growing up, as is sex
Say you âprotectâ this kid up until he/she is 19⊠with little to no prior experience regarding sexual relations/relationships in general it can be quite difficult to engrain oneself into the dating game/hookup culture
Some say hookup culture shouldnât exist⊠hogwash⊠sex is a normal, pleasurable activity between two consenting partners that can be tremendously fun, no need to reserve that âjust for marriageâ. Providing people with birth control, adequate resources regarding reproductive rights if something goes wrong creates a safer, more stable environment, lessens the burden associated with broken homes, inadequate quality of life (foster care), lowers maternal mortality rates (especially for those at risk of complications⊠as in⊠anyone below twenty)
The biggest problem is⊠where do you draw the line? What constitutes as an acceptable rationale⊠im generally very liberal regarding reproductive rights⊠however at what point, how many weeks in is it acceptable to terminate a pregnancy? I was born slightly under seven months of age where I live babies can be aborted under 24 wks post gestation⊠and after 24 weeks post gestation with a doctor signed reccomendation/letter⊠I was born not long after that duration of time, theoretically with a doctors note I couldâve been aborted⊠yet I survived a c section at that age, obviously a 10 week old foetus wouldnât survive, but for 24-30 weeksâŠ
Itâs complicatedâŠ
Arenât all the best jokes?
1 Like
Iâm really not interested in entering this umpteenth abortion debate again, but Iâll say this: I believe your position is flawed here.
If one accepts that all humans have a say in the ethicality of life and death mattersâas a byproduct of having universal and innate human rightsâand opponents believe abortion is murder, then it follows that there can be no gender selectivity about the appropriateness of a man holding an opinion on abortion.
Further, if you disagree that men can have standing to hold or should hold an opinion on abortion (itâs not their body, etc.etc), then you have to discount Roe v Wade since the majority of the justices that handed down that verdict were male.
Itâs cool to say you disagree with his stance, but you canât say that men shouldnât hold opinions on human rights issues with any degree of consistency. And you canât say that this particular opinion is de facto a reflection of his opinion on the value of women for the same reasons.
Universal human rights issues are just that, universal.
1 Like
I am not really trying to argue with you. But in the @chaoshander quote you sited, it seems to me that he does not accept your first premise in regards to abortion.
That might be true. I think that is vastly flawed though, since universal human rights are just that, universal.
Regardless though, most abortion opponents have this view and it is not going to communicate anything to them to say otherwise. If someone has the view that all people have the responsibility to speak up about murder and injustice, then saying âyouâre not a womanâ is not an effective reply.
I really appreciate the calm and thoughtful manner in which you approach religious and political topics!
3 Likes
Agree there. I donât think any arguments have a high success rate against the most staunch pro-lifers. Generally it seems that many hold their beliefs based on church teachings which are often seen as non-debatable. I am sure the pro-choice side also has those who are as stubborn. It takes work to be rational. I have moved a bit over time.
I also agree about @squating_bear being a reasonable person to have conversation with.
3 Likes
Everyone is, by all rights, entitled to their opinion. Rarely will I mentally crucify someone for harboring a different belief. (It just so happens that many thought patterns seem to run together in a cacophony of white noise that I just cant follow)
If you want the truth, I really dont give that much of a shit about the debate at all. I dont have kids, and if all goes according to plan, itâs going to stay that way. So you can easily disregard my opinions as the mutterings of an inexperienced fool.
Once in a while I just find myself itching to be involved in a debate of this kind just to see what I can get out of people. I actually wrote this thread off within a day after my last comment. Lost the fire I suppose.
1 Like
In his quote, he stated choice, not opinion. He said itâs a womanâs choice, he didnât say you couldnât have an opinion.
Big thanks man!
I used to very much enjoy ripping and blasting on people, you may or may not remember (will not be offended if not). I tried to set it up morally to where I wasnât in the wrong, but still I enjoyed ripping and blasting on my fellow man way too much
Man, if everyone was like that, then weâd be dead.
2 Likes
Sorry for my absence, Iâve been chasing electrical gremlins in my Excursion.
Not from me but I obviously like her logic and reasoning - âIn case you missed it: we have just arrived at a point in society where people believe that protecting and infantâs life is âbarbaricâ but allowing women to crush, dismember and poison a developing body is progressive.â @RealCadiceO
As Americans we are each and every one of us entitled the rights of life, liberty and justice defined by our Declaration of Independence. Yet abortion kills a new person and the pro-aborts stand by âfreedomâ to justify the slaughter. Am I misunderstanding how that is not hypocritical? I would truly appreciate someone explaining plainly how that is not a hypocritical position.
Science only changes when it isnât fully understood. Also know that âa functioning bran, let alone high functioningâ stops during periods of sleep.
Cells might be understood because they are so consistent but the actual science of their directions is far from understood. They cloned Dolly in the nineties but how long did she live? Children created in a petri dish face something like forty-five percent mortality rate, if memory serves it was a three decade study of more than three million in vitro fertilization according to scientists in Sweden. The moment a sperm and egg join of any mammal, the science of biology explains what happens but the âwhy and definition of howâ is not even close to being understood to point where the process can be manipulated successfully.
So living independent of the mother grants the right to life? How is a baby born not still dependent on someone to care for them until they grow-up, often well into their teens? How can that be a cut-off? Please hear me out on my line of thinking; this is one particular issue especially difficult with this medium.
What changes with a baby who has no measurable brain waves one day and a level the next? How about your brain while you sleep? Babies in the womb sleep too. What happens to the babies who are sleeping while there their mothers are in a clinic and they look for brain waves to determine if the baby can be aborted?
A quarter of a percent of a quarter percent of the women who have abortions are pregnant due to the horrible event of rape. You want to allow all abortions because of that tiny group?
Iâm telling you, all the democratic nominees for president in 2020 fully support unrestricted access to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
My morals regarding LIFE match those lines which will not be fudged or argued with using emotion. The case for LIFE has logic, science and reason.
Biology only theorizes how this is possible, it is far from scientific fact. How does an embryo know precisely when to divide into the exact organ building blocks. Science always shows more and more how things are unexplained. Sure ideas are understood better but those ideas lead to harder questions.
Is it my fault because this thread wasnât in my priority list as a stay-at-home father of four all while I have one functional arm? Should it be? And you wonât repeat your position so I can understand it better? Yet you insist mine is based on my faith even though I never use my faith to defend the position of LIFE, never have and never will. Yet you cannot see the hypocrisy of your precise line of thinking.
You forgot disabled with no functional arms or legs, she should be mentally disabled and deaf too; go ahead and make the situation as bad as you can make it. You donât care about the mothers because if you did you wouldnât be defending an action that slaughters her innocent child; instead you want to sexually use and abuse her during times she is most fertile. The funny portion is you donât understand why Iâm against birth-control, yet you make fun of it. When you fail at understanding another topic in your life, do you mask the ignorance with trying to be funny?
Bringing contraceptives to an area actually increases the rate of abortion. I would be happy to provide the statistics but your position will be that all the evidence provided will be biased. And by the way, many women still die from legal abortions, all those fans of abortion who want the act to be âsafe, legal and rare.â All you care about is wanting it legal. Own you choices dude, except even my seven year old struggles there so I should give you a little leeway.
H factor you mock me for having the position that if a couple doesnât want to have children, they donât have to partake in an activity known to create life. But what ârightâ grants anyone the ability to partake in any activity âconsequence free,â that is other than your pro-death/abortion position? Name a single activity. Everything has natural consequences, everything.
So you WANT there to be negative consequences for people? Thatâs just evil.
Pretty sure there are consequences for j-walking, but the likely hood of suffering those consequences are smaller than contraception failing. Thereâs an example.
What are you talking about? I simply stated you needed to reread my posts before continuing to respond as what I have been saying was clearly stated multiple times and I was tired of repeating myself. I donât care if you post all day or donât post at all. Heck youâre the one who resurrected a year old abortion thread. Why would I give a fuck if you spent time with your family instead of posting? No idea how you came to that conclusion.
What in the actual fuck is wrong with you? I want to sexually use and abuse women when they are fertile is news to me. I have two kids dumbass. Never sexually abused anyone.
Iâm not telling mothers what they can and canât do. Iâm explaining why not everyone makes the same choice as my wife and I did. Youâre telling raped women and women who may die during childbirth what to do. Iâm saying itâs not up to me. Clearly we are coming to different conclusions about which one is showing care. You who forces her to do what you want or me who doesnât. And how are you going to stop women from aborting when itâs illegal? Again how many stats do you need to see that show it wonât be stopped. It will just be made less safe.
Whatâs wrong with him? Heâs mentally unstable and emotionally fragile. Heâs also poorly educated and has a low IQ.