 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Double post 
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
 |
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Rape Victims impregnated by the rapist should be forced to go full term as well as it was not the childs choice. That is directly from Margaret Tighe and the Right to Life morons. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | | Rape Victims impregnated by the rapist should be forced to go full term as well as it was not the childs choice. That is directly from Margaret Tighe and the Right to Life morons. |
Mate, that is absolute crap as you well know.
This thread has degenerated to crap and I'm thinking that David and I are the only ones who can see the holistic view and don't need to write a theses to make a point.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Culprit wrote: | | Rape Victims impregnated by the rapist should be forced to go full term as well as it was not the childs choice. That is directly from Margaret Tighe and the Right to Life morons. |
Mate, that is absolute crap as you well know.
This thread has degenerated to crap and I'm thinking that David and I are the only ones who can see the holistic view and don't need to write a theses to make a point. |
C'mon your both the only ones seeing the holistic view, even though your both missing the entire point as to why women need to have the final say on a pregnancy.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Culprit wrote: | | Rape Victims impregnated by the rapist should be forced to go full term as well as it was not the childs choice. That is directly from Margaret Tighe and the Right to Life morons. |
Mate, that is absolute crap as you well know.
This thread has degenerated to crap and I'm thinking that David and I are the only ones who can see the holistic view and don't need to write a theses to make a point. |
C'mon your both the only ones seeing the holistic view, even though your both missing the entire point as to why women need to have the final say on a pregnancy. |
FFS, read our threads carefully then try that again.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | OEP wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Culprit wrote: | | Rape Victims impregnated by the rapist should be forced to go full term as well as it was not the childs choice. That is directly from Margaret Tighe and the Right to Life morons. |
Mate, that is absolute crap as you well know.
This thread has degenerated to crap and I'm thinking that David and I are the only ones who can see the holistic view and don't need to write a theses to make a point. |
C'mon your both the only ones seeing the holistic view, even though your both missing the entire point as to why women need to have the final say on a pregnancy. |
FFS, read our threads carefully then try that again. |
FFS, I have and I am.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
Black_White 
Joined: 19 Mar 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
stui, the assertion that posters support full term abortion is the biggest piece of crap in this thread.
And yet it was written by the person who you have buddied up to as " the only ones who can see the holistic view "
Well if you wish to attach your name to such crap, then you will be tarred with the same brush. |
|
|
|
|
tcnthat 
Joined: 25 Jun 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Does anyone else see the humour in OEP's sig block for this debate???
I am staying out of the abortion debate, but getting back on the topic of the thread title, maybe I will just say that I think (from afar) and have heard from first hand people who work with him and for him that Tony Abbott is a complete ar$ehole. Interests rates on the rise again, an Aussie to be hanged in Afghanistan, ongoing inertia in the Climate Change/Carbon tax debate, significant cooling of relations between us and two of our biggest trading partners (ChIndia) and this ^&*^*% is talking about people's virginity.
Come back Malcolm, all is forgiven.
_________________
Black. White. Forever. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Then one of us is dumb and missing the point.
I think that there is 2 different arguments going on.
I do support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy within certain restrictions imposed by society. One restriction being term of pregnancy. Her partners feelings on the matter are as relevant as he wants them to be.
I do not support the unconditional right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy at any stage up to and past 40 weeks gestation with no oversight.
Your thoughts????????
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Then one of us is dumb and missing the point.
I think that there is 2 different arguments going on.
I do support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy within certain restrictions imposed by society. One restriction being term of pregnancy. Her partners feelings on the matter are as relevant as he wants them to be.
I do not support the unconditional right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy at any stage up to and past 40 weeks gestation with no oversight.
Your thoughts???????? |
I'll have to get back to you, I'm playing Uncharted 2 on my PS3 and I'm at a really difficult part 
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | On the first highlighted point, well that was just a cheap shot. None of those mentioned by you made any intimation that they supported full term voluntary abortions. So it's hard to understand why you would make such a ugly claim. |
Stui gets it, why can't anyone else? It's simple. "Her body = her choice" has been the unqualified line promoted by at least four posters in this thread so far. So why is it offensive to suggest that this implies support of voluntary full-term abortions? It's still "her body". What's changed?
What I am trying to get people to admit is that such a simplistic, unqualified claim is not on its own a valid argument supporting abortion. Clearly, there is at least another factor at work than only the woman's rights, and the situation we have at the moment in most countries is a legal system that attempts to stake some kind of middle ground by establishing a point where the foetus becomes more than just a part of the woman's biology (usually around 20 weeks or thereabouts). I'm sure a lot of men played a role in the creation of those laws, too.
I feel that the "my opinion doesn't matter, it's up to the mother" response needs to be challenged because this debate isn't just about women's rights, as much as it's often framed that way. My concern is also over the rights of the foetus, how important those rights are in the context of the debate, at what stages those rights become gradually more important and how we compare the right to life of a developing human being in a primitive form to the right to autonomy of a fully-grown adult human being. As much as these rights are inherently in conflict, they both need to be taken into account. And yes, that is a debate that must involve society as a whole, not just each individual it affects in a case-by-case basic.
I think it's also easy to forget what a full pro-choice position implies. It implies the right of a boyfriend or father to put constant pressure on a woman to have an abortion that she might not necessarily want; it implies the right for the establishment to constantly remind everyone (and yes, we all lean towards society's "status quos" in one way or another) that abortion is a perfectly valid option should an unwanted pregnancy arise; it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for men with commitment issues who probably don't get stuck with the feelings of trauma, guilt or regret that the woman might potentially feel down the track. I'm sure that there are many women out there who are capable of making a completely independent choice regardless, but simultaneously there are many who aren't given that right.
| member34259 wrote: | | Well if you wish to attach your name to such crap, then you will be tarred with the same brush. |
Gee, thanks. And you still haven't actually answered my hypothetical. But that's the abortion debate for you - a lot of yelling and not much talking.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Absolute bullshit. You're melding individual decisions in with society's right to make laws in a total mish mash of generalisations. There's 2 different things at discussion.
Society has a right to make laws, ergo society has the right to legalise or ban abortion. If Abortion is legal but parameters are put in place,
eg first trimester fine, second trimester medical opinion required and 3rd trimester not unless the woman is at threat, then that's all good IMO.
To suggest that an individual woman has the ultimate control, regardless of society law, of her own body and therefore the fotus she carries is a ridiculous statement that takes no account of differing levels of intelligence, education and circumstances. Just because she's pregnant means she somehow has a mystical connection?  Pah, she as an individual was no dumber or smarter than she was before she got pregnant. |
I'd say the fact you feel comfortable dismissing the chemical, hormonal, physiological, neurological and psychiatric effects of pregnancy as trivialities when science has demonstrated how dramatic these changes actually are indicates where the problem lies. Men would probably be lucky to imagine a twentieth of the experience of pregnancy, let alone the 95% you seem to think you miraculously have access to.
Your claim that, "Society has a right to make laws, ergo society has the right to legalise or ban abortion" is a pretty huge non sequitur. Society has no rights except by the assent of people in relationships with each other. No sane person has ever granted the state the power to transform their physiology and determine their futures. Women do of course grant men this power on a regular basis, so perhaps that's why you're confusing politics with relationships.
Your view that the experience of pregnancy grants no greater or lesser intellectual knowledge to women also misses the boat by a mile. Once again, experience is not a rational calculation. Strangely, we never hear of Newton's third law of the experience of pregnancy 
There simply is no moral rule out there in the cosmos which has anything to contribute to this issue. All morality is entirely subjective and negotiated within relationships inside cultures. And throughout history, those relationships and that culture have been so grossly in favour of us Neanderthals that we ought to take extreme pause before claiming we have the insight to adjudicate on them.
[On a serious note, your personal experience was duly noted even though I haven't referenced it out of respect for something I clearly can't speak to; thanks for sharing it]. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| To I can't think of any. You suggest that an individual woman has the ultimate control of society law of her own body and the fotus she carries is a ridiculous statement that takes no account of differing levels of intelligence education and circumstances. Does it mean anything else? You know a lot about me. Where did Society lose rights except by the assent of people in relationships with each other ? Do you think it is inappropriate to treat women as objects? When? What is a rational calculation? |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
As I said before, then, let's at least get some women who have been pregnant into a forum of sorts and let them decide the laws on this. Better that than rejecting the process of law altogether.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Stui gets it, why can't anyone else? It's simple. "Her body = her choice" has been the unqualified line promoted by at least four posters in this thread so far. So why is it offensive to suggest that this implies support of voluntary full-term abortions? It's still "her body". What's changed? |
Unqualified? Support for someone's rights over their bodies clearly does not imply flippant support for everything they do with those rights. As with all feeling humans, I'm very uncomfortable with late-term abortions, but I'm more uncomfortable with thinking that the state has the right to make such a monumental decision over someone else's body and future or that you and I can even begin to comprehend pregnancy and make a meaningful contribution to the decision.
This is a lesser-of-two-evils argument, and one best settled by those whose bodies are in question. There is no ghost in the machine; without the body there is no human and nothing left to negotiate.
If it's not a matter of her body equals her choice, then the challenge is with you to demonstrate either that (a) it's not her body, or (b) that women believe the state has a right to intervene in their biologies and to determine their futures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
