Abortion, if you object does that mean you want to control women's uteri

timbo123

timbo123

Active Member
racerboy71 said:
but yah, i think it's trying to control a women's body for sure... most people who don't want to carry to term usually have some pretty solid reasons for doing so, ie, they're long, don't have good jobs, etc, or plain old don't won't a kid right now.. have you ever tried growing up knowing that your parents didn't want you? it's no good to say the least..
people always bitch about people on welfare and programs like wic et al, but then they at the same time don't want to allow abortions.. idk, i don't get it..
Click to expand...
i agree to a point. But there isn't any reason that a certain deadline shouldn't be imposed on making the decision that a baby isn't for you.
Some young mothers have delivered their baby in secret and then killed him after the home delivery. (Not often, but it has happened. One case was a girl named Rebecca Hofer for those of you google proof demanders). By your logic shouldn;t that also be legal? The mom realizes she won't be a good mom, so she makes the choice. The baby couldn't keep itself alive on it's own unless it is born with a real talent in the kitchen.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I wonder why the "you can't control a womans body" argument holds so much water, indeed, enough to convince some people completely, in this argument, yet when the exact same government legislates against things like cannabis, the "you can't control his/her body" argument flies right out the window..

Interesting..
 
timbo123

timbo123

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
i think he said 12 weeks, not 47 years and 9 months.



although a belly and a womb are not quite the same thing and your biological expertise enthralls me, i would pay money to see what you describe as it enthralls me to a much greater degree.
Click to expand...
Yes. He did say 12 weeks. My point was there may be a number of weeks when the gestator ceases to be the only person with some skin in the game.

Actually I chose the word "belly" quite deliberately. It means abdomen... both the stomach and the uterus lie within the confines of a woman's belly. (On a side note... as often as possible, my cock also lies within the confines of a woman's belly. (Thanks Hon!)... )

I agree. I would freaking love to see Fat Bastard scarf down a baby. That would be cool as fuck, no?
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
timbo123 said:
I feel this way too. And I see our friend Buck gave you the business about the presumably arbitrary number ("8 weeks") and then 12 weeks... I myself do not know what "the right" number of weeks is but I'll throw out a couple of personal observations of my own.
Let's face it... wherever one draws their personal "line" regarding when it crosses the line into "creepy"... there damn sure IS a line at least SOMEWHERE. Can we agree on that? A mother 'terminating" an unwanted pregnancy the day before her scheduled full term C-Section delivery is doing something far more than exercising control over "her" body at that point.
Click to expand...
I don't think I could say it any better than you have Timbo. As I said I am ambivalent about the whole thing. Certainly, at some point during gestation, though, the baby is a real, live human being. Where to draw the line is a tough call.

The reason I started the thread is to refute the notion that objecting to abortion is necessarily about some sort of subversion of sovereignty of women's bodies. You can't murder a baby that has been born. Late term unborn infants deserve the same protection by society. The whole question is very difficult to resolve.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
timbo123 said:
I feel this way too. And I see our friend Buck gave you the business about the presumably arbitrary number ("8 weeks") and then 12 weeks... I myself do not know what "the right" number of weeks is but I'll throw out a couple of personal observations of my own.
Let's face it... wherever one draws their personal "line" regarding when it crosses the line into "creepy"... there damn sure IS a line at least SOMEWHERE. Can we agree on that? A mother 'terminating" an unwanted pregnancy the day before her scheduled full term C-Section delivery is doing something far more than exercising control over "her" body at that point.
Click to expand...
I have a similar feeling ... near term it's a person, but in early term it's alive and human and not yet a person.
*Somewhere* along the way the personhood assignment applies.
My best suggestion for that line, and it needs to be a sharp line for practical purposes, is what was called "quickening", when the mother can feel the fetus' first motions. Typically this happens at 20-22 weeks, and it coincides with the extreme cases of preemie survival with our current support technology.
That is my suggestion ... and I acknowledge that it is subjective.
But it impresses me as the best balance between the necessity of recognizing a newborn (and a fetus past the seven-month mark, at which point it might even survive without especial support measures) as a person, and an early pregnancy as ... not a person.

I'd still like to know DD's rationale for eight weeks, and his rationale for twelve. They need to be different from each other if they're to be even minimally reasoned. Jmo. cn
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
timbo123 said:
i agree to a point. But there isn't any reason that a certain deadline shouldn't be imposed on making the decision that a baby isn't for you.
Some young mothers have delivered their baby in secret and then killed him after the home delivery. (Not often, but it has happened. One case was a girl named Rebecca Hofer for those of you google proof demanders). By your logic shouldn;t that also be legal? The mom realizes she won't be a good mom, so she makes the choice. The baby couldn't keep itself alive on it's own unless it is born with a real talent in the kitchen.
Click to expand...
Same logic would say most 7 year olds couldn't survive without their mother so those little bastards should be fair game too. Besides, you can pretty much tell by then if your kid is defective, it would save society the burden of a lot of broken people.

7 isn't a hard number, just a suggestion.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ginwilly said:
Wow

That was a pretty powerful article, thanks for posting that. I honestly don't know how I feel without digesting this for awhile.

Teenager boxes would be a huge hit in the states.
Click to expand...
There might be legal issues with the necessity for no inside latch/opener. cn
 
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Same logic would say most 7 year olds couldn't survive without their mother so those little bastards should be fair game too. Besides, you can pretty much tell by then if your kid is defective, it would save society the burden of a lot of broken people.

7 isn't a hard number, just a suggestion.
Click to expand...
LOL, Those little bastards.
I'll tell you what, I have a hammer and a shop vac, all I need is Bucky's head..

Seriously, If it stops a beating heart (not sure how many weeks) it should be considered MURDER.
And for you science fans: Try to grow a human in your grow room.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I have a similar feeling ... near term it's a person, but in early term it's alive and human and not yet a person.
*Somewhere* along the way the personhood assignment applies.
My best suggestion for that line, and it needs to be a sharp line for practical purposes, is what was called "quickening", when the mother can feel the fetus' first motions. Typically this happens at 20-22 weeks, and it coincides with the extreme cases of preemie survival with our current support technology.
That is my suggestion ... and I acknowledge that it is subjective.
But it impresses me as the best balance between the necessity of recognizing a newborn (and a fetus past the seven-month mark, at which point it might even survive without especial support measures) as a person, and an early pregnancy as ... not a person.

I'd still like to know DD's rationale for eight weeks, and his rationale for twelve. They need to be different from each other if they're to be even minimally reasoned. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...
My rationale is not reasoned, it is a simple statement that at some point it is no longer moral to abort a fetus. I could support the 20 week limit for similar reasons. I have thought about the solo viability point as a reasonable cutoff as well.

What I cannot get my head around is the hard core position that abortion of a fetus at any point during gestation is just peachy.

Ron Paul tells a story of watching a late term abortion when he was in training to become an obstetrician. The doctor removed a fetus that was moving, and gasping for air and placed it in a bucket to die. Just the description seems absolutely horrifying. RP said that experience cemented his position against abortion.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Wow

That was a pretty powerful article, thanks for posting that. I honestly don't know how I feel without digesting this for awhile.

Teenager boxes would be a huge hit in the states.
Click to expand...
We do the same thing here in the US. Several states have "no fault" drop off places for unwanted infants. I think California is one. I think this is a pretty good idea.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
We do the same thing here in the US. Several states have "no fault" drop off places for unwanted infants. I think California is one. I think this is a pretty good idea.
Click to expand...
I think the point of Abandon's article was women could potentially get taken advantage of and the drop box isn't their choice. Abortion is therefore the only moral choice. Kill that motherfucker while it's still a parasite and give women control over their lives!
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
I believe women should have control of their lives unless it involves selling bjs, renting her vagina or not paying the individual mandate in Obamacare. In those instances I believe the government knows best.

At what point does the child stop being a parasite affecting the mother's life? I know some 30 year olds that would still qualify. In fact, a baby is much more demanding of the mother than a fetus.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I believe women should have control of their lives unless it involves selling bjs, renting her vagina or not paying the individual mandate in Obamacare. In those instances I believe the government knows best.

At what point does the child stop being a parasite affecting the mother's life? I know some 30 year olds that would still qualify. In fact, a baby is much more demanding of the mother than a fetus.
Click to expand...
I agree that women MUST pay the individual mandate penaltax. I am fine with women selling BJs, and collecting an occasional short term docking fee.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Go ahead and say it, Bucky. You are just fine with killing the kid ten minutes before delivery. Opinion, you has one too.
Click to expand...
i believe women should have complete autonomy and liberty over their bodies, whereas you believe in imposing arbitrary authoritarian morality on them.

and one of us calls ourselves a libertarian, but it's not who you would think based on the above description.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
and desert dumb, you never told me what the punishment would be for women who refuse to yield autonomy of their bodies to your moral authoritarianism after 12 weeks, nor have you told me how the government would go about monitoring every fetus in existence within our borders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top