 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why not throw a costly and difficult toddler in the trash for these same reasons? |
When it can survive on it's own, it can be taken over by someone else. The mother can severe ties with a toddler, buy giving them up. If the mother could do the same witha foetus, I'd have no problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And none of these are medical benefits. This is like saying a placebo has demonstrable medical effects because people feel better after taking them. |
Yes, and? Placebo's have been used to treat some conditions, as the psychological effect can help the patient get better. However I would say it's not the same, as removing a baby is an action, a placebo is all psychological.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why is the solution to this problem to kill the child? There are many other ways to solve the problem. |
Not the same way there aren't. If the problem is with the pregnancy, there is no other way. Moreover, there isn't a child to kill. I still don't believe, and evidently neither does the patient, that the foetus is a child, with the rights that entails.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
www.princeton.edu/ec/ecpnyou.html
About 50% of women experience nausea and 20% vomit. A far more serious side effect is the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The Princeton University website promoting ECPs also warns: "It is possible ... that a woman using ECPs could have one of the dangerous or even fatal complications that have been reported in very rare cases with normal, prolonged use of birth control pills. These include: thrombophlebitis (blood clots in the legs), lung clots, heart attack, stroke, liver damage, liver tumor, gallbladder disease, and high blood pressure" |
Yep, no less than almost any over the counter medicine. Side effects. To some people the medication is still worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Biologically, you cannot have a parasite of the same species as the host. |
Definition?
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then most children also have no right to depend on their parents, and we do not have the right to depend on each other.
Remember your praise of my point that no man is an Island? |
Yes, but still you have no right to life at someone's expense. As a living child, the state can take you in and care for you. As a foetus, you cannot survive without that mother. The mother should be able to withdraw support in both cases. You have no right to depend on your parents, since they can decide to give you up for adoption if they feel they can't cope. If you could give up a foetus without killing it, I'd be perfectly happy with banning abortion. But you can't.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Okay. But what are the medical benefits that justify the use of ecp? |
To some women, terminating a pregnancy is enough of a benefit. Like curing a headache is enough to justify the use of codine, or other such substances with side effects.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So if I said that I intended to remove all the air from someone I would not be charged with murder?
That's not right, Drogue. Of course I would be charged with murder even if I said I only intended to remove the air, because I know that to remove the air from someone will result in his death. |
Yes, because with murder, you are charged even if it is a secondary effect, with the exception of removing your support. If you remove support from an elderly relative, who dies, you aren't prosecuted. If you remove support from a man on life support, in a coma, you aren't held responsible. The latter is possible life too, and has a chance of recovery, but at times support is still removed. Why should the mother be held to different standards than the doctor?
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The same here. To remove the support from the child, is like suffocating him. One should be just as responsible as in the first case. |
No, it's your support to remove. No-one should be able to force you to support something that is feeding of your body, without your consent.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's dumb. The medical authorities should get to decide what gets stocked and what does not. The very fact that the politicians get involved tells me that pharmacy supplies are more about politics than about medicine. |
It's called democracy, where the poeple decide. If you want to change law, you have to convince the people. Law wouldn't have to get involved if you didn't want to ban things. If you can change medical practice by getting the medical authorities to change policy, then that's fine too. However I think you'd have more luck with the legislators.
It seems the main parts of our argument comes down to the child's right to life vs the mother's right to her own support. I believe the mother should be able to remove her support at any time, and if that necessitates the death of the foetus, then so be it. You seem to believe that the child's right to live at the mother's expense trumps the mother's right to her body. This seems to be partly based on your belief that the child is a person, that I do not share, but even without that, I still believe the mother has a right to her own body, and her own support. If she chooses to remove support, either the foetus/child is taken into care of the state, or it dies. Since the first option isn't possible with a foetus, the second happens. I believe a mother's right to her own body trumps any rights of the foetus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
BK would counter by saying that the fact you have the child there is a consequence of consenting sex. However, I would make the argument to counter you that where you have a conscious being dependent entirely upon you as a direct result or intent of your own consenting actions, then you have responsibility over that being, whereupon it can be called a being. As a result, to kill it in while it is in such care, is murder. That just applies to beings however. |
However I wouldn't agree. I don't believe you have a responsibility for it in terms of keeping it alive. I believe you have a responsibility to give it up for adoption rather than letting it die, but since that isn't possible for abortion, it has no option other than to die or to be living off the support of the mother, then the mother can choose. Moreover, I don't think sex is explicitly consenting to parenthood, even though it is a possibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
However I wouldn't agree. I don't believe you have a responsibility for it in terms of keeping it alive. I believe you have a responsibility to give it up for adoption rather than letting it die, but since that isn't possible for abortion, it has no option other than to die or to be living off the support of the mother, then the mother can choose. Moreover, I don't think sex is explicitly consenting to parenthood, even though it is a possibility.
|
I never said it was explicit consent, what I wrote was "direct result or intent of your own consenting actions", whereby explicit consent is only given to the act itself, you are still responsible for the direct consequences.
Upon its being, you have a responsibility not to terminate the child while it is in your care and there are no other options. A mother cannot simply withdraw her services. To kill the child directly would be murder if it is a being, and her responsibility if she does so because it is in her care, thus she is obliged not to kill it. For the most part, maturnal instinct makes this whole question irrelevant anyway with a well-developed foetus, though of course this is a conceptual debate.
If, as a direct result of my actions, a person is attached, say, externally to me and is wholly dependent upon me. That person cannot be removed and would die if I did so, then I am still responsible for it. If it is a being, it is like a helpless baby, still a being, a person unto itself, in the care of its mother, or a prisoner utterly dependent upon his captors to keep him alive. Since both the prisoner, the child, and the person attached to me is my responsibility, and yet is also sentient, then to kill it would be murder and not the removal of a parasite.
The whole thing rests upon whether or not one is responsible, and when the transition from lifeform to being occurs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:23
|
|
Humanity is transmitted both genetically -- via genes -- and memetically -- via ideas. You aren't fully human until the age of majority.
Where do we draw the line? Well, personally, I'd say birth. Infanticide has a lot going against it. People avail of it for all the wrong reasons -- "wrong" sex, physical deformity, mental disability, too many mouths to feed (should have figured that one out during physical gestation, dumb****).
Also, though we know of the baroque beauty of the adult mind, we only know of it abstractly. Physically, killing a newborn is not much different from killing an adult. It desensitizes. It turns people into potential murderers.
Birth is a very good dividing line. Whether conventional or caesarean, there is very little argument about when it occurs. The procedure for pre-empting a birth is very different from one for killing an adult human.
So, abortion yes:thumbsup:, infanticide no:thumbsdown:.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
I never said it was explicit consent, what I wrote was "direct result or intent of your own consenting actions", whereby explicit consent is only given to the act itself, you are still responsible for the direct consequences. |
IMHO, you are perfectly at rights to put things to exactly the situation they were before your action. Ie. without the baby. If I go for a drive in my car, I might crash it. If I crash it, I can get it fixed back to how it was. If I have sex, I might create a child. If I do, I can put it back to how it was (from a women's point of view). You are responsible, but not to keep the child alive.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Upon its being, you have a responsibility not to terminate the child while it is in your care and there are no other options. A mother cannot simply withdraw her services. |
Yes she can. She can get it adopted.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
To kill the child directly would be murder if it is a being, and her responsibility if she does so because it is in her care, thus she is obliged not to kill it. |
No, it is illegal because she has another option, that of adoption. She has the right to withdraw her services, she does not have the right to kill it.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
If, as a direct result of my actions, a person is attached, say, externally to me and is wholly dependent upon me. That person cannot be removed and would die if I did so, then I am still responsible for it. |
No. if you don't want it there, it is a living at your expense, and thus has no claim to life.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
If it is a being, it is like a helpless baby, still a being, a person unto itself, in the care of its mother, or a prisoner utterly dependent upon his captors to keep him alive. Since both the prisoner, the child, and the person attached to me is my responsibility, and yet is also sentient, then to kill it would be murder and not the removal of a parasite. |
The baby can be adopted, the prisoner can be released. You can withdraw your support without killing them. If they then die, it is not your responsibility. With a foetus there is no other way to remove your support, so it comes down to the mother's right to remove her support vs the foetus' right to life. IMHO, the mother's right to her remove her support wins.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
IMHO, you are perfectly at rights to put things to exactly the situation they were before your action. Ie. without the baby. If I go for a drive in my car, I might crash it. If I crash it, I can get it fixed back to how it was. If I have sex, I might create a child. If I do, I can put it back to how it was (from a women's point of view). You are responsible, but not to keep the child alive.
|
That does not refute my argument, you have merely restated yours with an "IMHO" and an example. I am explaining how that is not the case if there is another being involved in that situation and it is ones responsibility for that. Of course after childbirth, other options present themselves, but only where they are available. If not, it is your responsibility to keep your helpless child alive after birth to the best of ability (i.e. if foster/adoption isn't available to you).
quote:
Yes she can. She can get it adopted.
|
This issue is one of abortion. As I said above, if after birth there is that option she is free to take it, if not same thing applies. Before childbirth that is not the case, though if the opportunity does present itself in the future obviously that's fine.
quote:
No, it is illegal because she has another option, that of adoption. She has the right to withdraw her services, she does not have the right to kill it.
|
That does not answer my question or address my argument, you have merely reiterated your proposition.
quote:
No. if you don't want it there, it is a living at your expense, and thus has no claim to life.
|
And again.
quote:
If they then die, it is not your responsibility.
|
Only because they are not in your care.
quote:
With a foetus there is no other way to remove your support, so it comes down to the mother's right to remove her support vs the foetus' right to life. IMHO, the mother's right to her remove her support wins.
[/qutoe]
You talk as though it is a natural right. Nonetheless, I shall repeat my argument in the hope that you will address it... the issue of responsibility for ones own actions causes consequences whereupon a being has been created. If you consider there to be a window in pregnancy where the embryo is a mere lifeform, then develops into a being, then you can abort in that time, afterwards, the fact that a child is a being complicates the simplistic scenario, and thus we are forced to conclude that abortion after that point is murder.
[quote]
Did they know that at the time? Did they believe they would be punished? has it been covered up in the destruction of records?
|
LC is correct. The guards at various concentration camps were able to opt out of serving there and still remain in the SS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
That does not refute my argument, you have merely restated yours with an "IMHO" and an example. I am explaining how that is not the case if there is another being involved in that situation and it is ones responsibility for that. Of course after childbirth, other options present themselves, but only where they are available. If not, it is your responsibility to keep your helpless child alive after birth to the best of ability (i.e. if foster/adoption isn't available to you). |
Yes, and you restated yours. That is your opinion, that you have responsibilities like that. As I said, I do not agree. IMHO you have no responsibility for keeping a foetus alive, being or not. It does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. Your argument was your opinion, mine was mine. I wasn't trying to refute you, I was trying to get you to understand that other people, like me, may see it differently.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
This issue is one of abortion. As I said above, if after birth there is that option she is free to take it, if not same thing applies. Before childbirth that is not the case, though if the opportunity does present itself in the future obviously that's fine. |
Yes, exactly. Before childbirth there is not the option of adoption. And since, IMHO, the foetus has not claim to life at the expense of the mother, termination is permitted, being or not. The mother has the ability to withdraw her support.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
That does not answer my question or address my argument, you have merely reiterated your proposition. |
Your proposition was that the mother cannot withdraw her services, and she is obliged not to let it die. The latter is true, IMHO, because of adoption, because she has another option. IMHO, the mother can withdraw her services, other option or not. All you have done is state your proposition, that the women has a responsibility. I have stated that I disagree, and you attack me for not addressing your argument? That part is a simple matter of opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
And again. |
Again, yes it did. you said "That person cannot be removed and would die if I did so, then I am still responsible for it. " and I claimed that you are not. If it's lving at your expense, you can withdraw your support and responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
You talk as though it is a natural right. |
Which it isn't. As I said, all rights are granted by the state. IMHO, if I had a state, that right would be granted. I believe that women should have a right to decide to remove her support.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nonetheless, I shall repeat my argument in the hope that you will address it... the issue of responsibility for ones own actions causes consequences whereupon a being has been created. |
I have addressed that. You are not responsible to keep it alive, IMHO. Because either there is another option, or because it is living of your body.
I have addressed your argument all the way along. You were claiming you had a responsibility to look after that being. I claimed that you don't. You can always withdraw your support and responsibility, wrt the beings life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Yes, and you restated yours. That is your opinion, that you have responsibilities like that. As I said, I do not agree. IMHO you have no responsibility for keeping a foetus alive, being or not. It does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. Your argument was your opinion, mine was mine. I wasn't trying to refute you, I was trying to get you to understand that other people, like me, may see it differently.
|
You know as well as I do that I do not question that, however you presented your opinion, your proposition, I refuted it and countered it, you have failed thus far to offer a defense of my refutation, or a counter to my proposition, instead of repeating yourself. You have told me nothing new of your position or mine in the course of this debate.
quote:
Yes, exactly. Before childbirth there is not the option of adoption. And since, IMHO, the foetus has not claim to life at the expense of the mother, termination is permitted, being or not. The mother has the ability to withdraw her support.
|
Your argument rests upon the tautology that the foetus does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. One of my points has been to examine and counter that, since you are effectively considering the mother, whereas I am working on the assumption that two beings are being considered. If the child is not a being, by all means you are correct, however it's being presents the notion of responsibility.
Where you assume it to be a being, and you take the child into your care, as in this case of pregnancy and also postnatal childcare, you effectively take the responsibility of the childs free will as your own, and thus to allow it to die as an intent of your actions eliminates their responsibility (the question of influence) and reduces it to impositional killing, iow murder. A claim to life is irrelevant. A right to kill it is, and does not exist in this situation.
quote:
Your proposition was that the mother cannot withdraw her services, and she is obliged not to let it die. The latter is true, IMHO, because of adoption, because she has another option. IMHO, the mother can withdraw her services, other option or not. All you have done is state your proposition, that the women has a responsibility. I have stated that I disagree, and you attack me for not addressing your argument? That part is a simple matter of opinion.
|
My proposition is that the mother has no right to kill a being even for her own ends whereupon its existence and life is her responsibility, regardless of her ends. Whether or not adoption is available is irrelevant to the given situation here. If it is, and after childbirth, then it would undermine my argument since the mother can give it away, but were it not to exist the reasoning would apply in this context. In the case of pregancy, where no option of adoption is available, the issue is starker.
As for your argument, a debate is not simple a question of stating "this is my view" and "this is your view". They engage the other, one person attempting to refute the other and defending. To what ends depends upon the nature of the debate of course, here I view it as testing my position and comparing it to others by dissecting them and experimenting with the predictions of their logic.
quote:
Again, yes it did. you said "That person cannot be removed and would die if I did so, then I am still responsible for it. " and I claimed that you are not. If it's lving at your expense, you can withdraw your support and responsibility.
|
No, my example was that I was directly responsible for the being being so attached, accordingly to the rest of the example, I was responsible for it. If it were an involuntary parasite, by all means, but that was not the case, and is not the case with pregnancy resulting from consenting sex. Therefore to kill it by neglect is to negate your own responsibility for it, a responsibility that exists when you take its freedom, and the consequences of its free will upon yourself. It is the same logic that states that only parents and teachers of a child should administer corporal punishment if that is to be allowed.
quote:
Which it isn't. As I said, all rights are granted by the state. IMHO, if I had a state, that right would be granted. I believe that women should have a right to decide to remove her support.
|
I'm very well aware of that, but now you're being opaque. The question of natural vs. artificial rights is largely irrelevant, I believe I dealt with it on the other page, the question is one of responsibility as a result of ones free will. I know you're a determinist but we previously agreed that the subjective conscious individual (person) at the moment has free will.
quote:
I have addressed your argument all the way along.
|
But you haven't you defend yourself by reiterating yourself and stating your views as factual conclusions of your argument instead of defending against the attacks on that argument! You do not question my assumptions, nor defend your own. The castle is locked and the defenders seem to be asleep.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
You know as well as I do that I do not question that, however you presented your opinion, your proposition, I refuted it and countered it, you have failed thus far to offer a defense of my refutation, or a counter to my proposition, instead of repeating yourself. You have told me nothing new of your position or mine in the course of this debate. |
Refuted mine? Youb gave your opinion about responsibility, after I'd given mine. I said that I didn't agree, and gave reasons and examples why. I did not intend to refute yours, as it was clear that the reason we differed was starting from a different opinion regarding responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Your argument rests upon the tautology that the foetus does not have a claim to life at the expense of the mother. One of my points has been to examine and counter that, since you are effectively considering the mother, whereas I am working on the assumption that two beings are being considered. If the child is not a being, by all means you are correct, however it's being presents the notion of responsibility. |
I am considering both as I said, yet I believe the mother's choice regarding her support is the key, as the child has no right to that support. Yes, my argument does rest upon that statement, which is my opinion. I do not believe the notion of responsibility does come into this, since I do not believe anyone has responsibility for that childs life.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Where you assume it to be a being, and you take the child into your care, as in this case of pregnancy and also postnatal childcare, you effectively take the responsibility of the childs free will as your own, and thus to allow it to die as an intent of your actions eliminates their responsibility (the question of influence) and reduces it to impositional killing, iow murder. A claim to life is irrelevant. A right to kill it is, and does not exist in this situation. |
IMHO, you do not take that childs free will as your own. There is no right to kill, but equally, there is no responsibility to support. You can support, or you can give the child up.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
As for your argument, a debate is not simple a question of stating "this is my view" and "this is your view". They engage the other, one person attempting to refute the other and defending. To what ends depends upon the nature of the debate of course, here I view it as testing my position and comparing it to others by dissecting them and experimenting with the predictions of their logic. |
But I have not seen you refute my argument, except by saying that the mother has responsibility to the child. Since I don't believe this to be the case, that is no refutation. What I meant by my opinion is on base level, we disagree about the notion of responsibility. Therefore, your refutation holds no water with my view that the mother has a responsibility. A debate is a discussion of views, not purely the way you want to. I presented mine, and I haven't seen an attack from you on them, that doesn't revolve around a premise that I disagree with, and that is purely a matter of opinion. Moreover, my debate was not with you, until you interjected saying you have found a flaw. Since that flaw relies on something that I believe is not true, that is not a flaw to me. That flaw, the original point, would only be a flaw if the mother had a responsibility to keep the child alive. Since, as I've said, I don't believe it does, that is not a flaw for my argument, merely another way it could be seen. Responsibility is not something that can be discussed, you can say why you believe it to exist and I can say why I don't, but i think we've gone over that enough. You cannot attack the premise of it, since that is the premise for our arguments. You whole argument and refutation is mute if the mother has no responsibility, and I don't believe she has, with regards to the childs life. If you have an argument that doesn't revolve around the responsibility, then I'd love to hear it.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
But you haven't you defend yourself by reiterating yourself and stating your views as factual conclusions of your argument instead of defending against the attacks on that argument! You do not question my assumptions, nor defend your own. The castle is locked and the defenders seem to be asleep. |
I have never stated my views as factual conclusions, merely as my opinion. Of course I'm not going to attack your assumptions, they are your opinion, and I'm not going to change that. Similarly, you haven't attacked mine, save presenting yours as contrary. Your argument rests upon the mother having responsibility for the child. I do not believe that to be the case, fruthermore, as I have stated, I believe that adoption, in giving a way out of responsibility, shows that the mother doesn't have any, since she can choose to give up the child. Of course the mother can't kill the child, however she can remove her support. When the adoption option is not present, as in pregnancy, then the mother can still remove her support. If that would kill the foetus, then it does, if they would not, then the baby survives outside of the womb in the states care.
I snipped out the other bits since I've managed to repeat myself enough already.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
Would it have just been easier to have put:
quote:
I'll interject to show a big flaw in your reasoning.
BK would counter by saying that the fact you have the child there is a consequence of consenting sex. However, I would make the argument to counter you that where you have a conscious being dependent entirely upon you as a direct result or intent of your own consenting actions, then you have responsibility over that being, whereupon it can be called a being. As a result, to kill it in while it is in such care, is murder. That just applies to beings however. |
What responsibility to care for that being? If support can be removed without killing it, that, or if it can't, then removign support with killing it. Either way, you have no responsibility to support that being, IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, if these emergency contraceptives were actually contraceptive, then you would have an argument. However, they are all abortifacients that just change the date when the abortion happens to earlier in the term. |
Hmm ... does anyone know when conception takes place after intercourse? I imagine a lot depends on the position of the egg in the fallopian tube, motility of the sperm and so on. Twelve hours? Sixteen? Twenty-four? My point being that if the emergency drugs are administered in a timely fashion, it might prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place.
Even so — and this is where we have a fundamental disagreement — I don't believe a just-fertilized egg constitutes a human being. To me, that's belittling just what the soul is (a small mass of cells, three days old?!) and perhaps even God. IOW, I think (and this is getting into theological and faith ... definitely not conventional science) the soul and God are more intelligent than what some give them credit for. To reduce them to some sort of "Oh! Hey! There's a mass of cells that's going to grow into a human! I must embed myself in there! I don't care if its genetically flawed, or that the woman carrying it is contemplating abortion ... I must embed myself!" mentality is, to me, a bit constricting.
quote:
If responsible condom use, and education worked, then there would be no need for emergency 'contraception.' The fact that such a last resort has become popular is an indication of the failure in our current methods of health education. It's no different from abortion as a means of birth control. |
Using that logic, if anti-abortion laws worked, there'd be no back alley abortionists, would there? Furthermore, you call it "popular." I disagree, considering the fact that the number of legal abortions in this country has actually declined from its high.
What it comes down to is this: There are 6.2 billion people on this planet, and it's nigh impossible to get them all to do "the right thing," all the time. IMO, once sex education is offered and taken, then society has done what it can, and now it's up the individual in question. It's their life, and one can only hope they do right by it.
quote:
You are dealing with more than one person, Gatekeeper. Why should the physician, and the pharmacist and the nurse be concerned only for the life of the mother, and neglect the child growing inside of her.
As it is, they have a responsibility to both, and they are right to refuse treatment that kills a person. |
I believe Ming does a good job of addressing this above.
quote:
That's the problem with condoms, and why abstinence needs to play a more prominent role. If people understood that even if they do everything right, they can still get pregnant, then they will be less likely to engage in the behavior in the first place.
Rather than being shocked, it would be better to show them how to avoid this whole situation in the first place. |
Yet history obviously shows that just saying "no" and using abstinence education doesn't work 100 percent, either. Therefore, you need to expose people to *all* aspects of sex education — abstinence, STDs, the stages of pregnancy and childbirth, contraception options and so on. That way, they not only know the best way to avoid pregnancy, but also what options they have if pregnancy occurs.
quote:
Hold on a minute. Why should the woman be the only one to have a say? If we hold men up to their responsibility to take care of the children they conceive, then we can avoid many of the problems that come afterwards.
It's not fair to burden everything on the women, when the responsibility should be shared. |
I did include men in my statement. Go back and look.
That said, a big part of my gripe with anti-abortionists (aside from what you already know) is the fact that so much of what they do seems to be aimed squarely at keeping the woman in her place. Not the man. It's rare for me to ever hear anything about the responsibility the man has in the whole affair. It angers me. Perhaps that "Isn't she too young?" campaign should go nationwide, since a good deal of unwanted pregnancies are caused by older men having their way with teenage girls.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dudemanjack
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
In actuality, they did have the option to not to kill and remain in the army; apparently, no-one was ever punished for refusing to participitate in killings of civilians or POWs.
OTOH, if they quit the army before the expiry of their contracts, they risked being executed as deserteurs. |
Of course then you get sent to the eastern front to be killed by Russians...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-09-2004 19:06
|