[rhane]

	Originally Posted by Bobert To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assuming that you're not completely against abortion, do you believe that it's solely the womans choice to have an abortion, or that the man should, at least, be allowed to attempt to change the womans mind? (given consentual sex & non-health related problems) I think the man should be allowed to voice an opinion in an attempt to prevent an abortion, if the man feels competent to raise the child.

Whatever your private opinion, the decision to have or not have an abortion ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT. God damn bastards should stay out of peoples private affairs...

[Zsych]

I'm in a semi-philosophical, sour, and very argumentative mood. Almost don't think this deserves to be read:

( Show Spoiler )

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fascinating. You'd rather have governments making life-altering decisions for women rather than having them choose themselves. What a perfect world.

There are multiple issues there:
1. The effect on society
2. The effect on the person

Its the government's job to stop various crimes from occuring, to judge what is in the better interest of people at large (even though it may seem to hurt some people). Thus the basic question of whether or not its a crime. Pro-Life of course, says that it is, but personally I don't care about that. I don't like sweeping statements and one solution to all problems, just because they have one common characteristic.

Let's say, it is detrimental for a child to be brought into the world by a drug addict, who has neither the money or capacity to take care of it - but who wants the child. Sorry, I don't see the child or society benefiting from letting this woman do what she wants. This woman is part of the society, and subject to its will (much like a murderer is subject to society's will). The body may be theirs, but as far as the government is concerned, people do not have the right to just use it as they please. Otherwise, you'd be able to kill and steal, and it would be your right.

.. As for the woman herself... I'm not sure its a positive personality characteristic to be willing to kill a potential child of your own because the kid inconveniences you. I think making such a choice, like commiting any other harsh act, changes you a little... Personally, I'd say that even if the decision to allow abortion is based on the woman's own desire, it should kinda come from the government, thus shifting the blame a little, and reducing the emotional effects of that choice.

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And you think that has anything to do with abortion?

In either case, a decision is being made about what constitutes a valid human being that has rights, and should be allowed to live. That you think a newly conceived child isn't human and can be discarded as trash is your interpretation, and not one that everyone agrees with. A child of two years of age, that could not contribute to anything in any useful way, and barely comprehend anything, could as well be judged as worthless, even if it has potential to be more... a viewpoint that not everyone would agree with.

	Originally Posted by Alex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Good grief; in the contest of lengths people will go to in their irrational disdain for abortion, this is definitely a gold-medal performance here. We should actually overburden medical and police resources even more so than they are now just so we can examine every single miscarrying woman for evidence of foul play. Astounding.

You do realize that you're letting your emotions on the subject force you into seeing whatever you want to see. I did say "Might not be a bad thing to know anyway, if it weren't particularly costly to know." --> Meaning that its a worthwhile option if it could be done cheaply --> Not implying further burdening the medical system. Although the medical system not working well, is because its a ridiculously inefficient piece of trash run by companies that want to make money, and don't really seem to care about the people they are supposedly serving. (I say that out of personal irritation at having paid thousands of dollars of doctors bills, for them telling me that there was nothing serious wrong with me, and nothing they could do about the problems I was facing...)

btw, I have no serious objection to abortion. It doesn't appeal to me, but ultimately the child is the parents'.

Originally Posted by Alex

It sounds like a few of the people who have commented in this thread have ideas of a perfect world, and all of them sound like some twisted agrarian hellholes. When it comes to the issue of abortion, so many of them have this tendency to talk about what's "natural", what "nature" intended, our "responsibilities" as humans to spread the seed (even though we're, like, INSANELY overpopulated already) - it's like listening to cavemen talk about "the good old days". I say, if they're so big on "letting nature take it's course", then they need to get off the internet, turn off their computers, move out of the houses or apartments they're sitting in, give up their health insurance, go kill a wild animal, put on its hide, and go hunt for their food the way nature obviously intended. Whatever diseases they catch in the meantime, tough nuggets - nature should be allowed to do its worst. I personally enjoy the 21st century where my life isn't dictated by instinct. I may be an animal in some respects, but I embrace humanity, and its innovations, whenever I can.

Actually you are ruled by a twisted mess of instincts and emotions being used to simulate a worthwhile intelligence - that's what our intelligence amounts to. Very few of us aren't being biased by our own desires. You're also oversimplifying. Most people here wouldn't have an objection to birth control, even if they dislike abortion. Just how far we should go from our natures is a good question. Since there definitely is a 'too far'. It seems their instincts are telling them that this viewpoint of killing conceived children, has gone too far.

And completely off-topic: Do you create new things? I find it annoying to see people claim to be part of the 'oh so superior species that is the human race' - with all of its achievements.. when so very few actually have the ability to create such things themselves or come up with new ideas that actually benefit the species as a whole.

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've already stated that it's not okay for someone who isn't pro-choice to push their moral beliefs on someone else. Abortion is not about morality it's about personal choice.

And it is that way, because you say it is. And if anyone disagrees with you, they're nuts. Moral acts are those which serve the better interests of society. In comparison to society, the wants of individuals can be ignored. Just like a murderer can be robbed even of his own life, by society. The person did what he wanted, what he believed to be the right choice, something that was within his capabilities to do(you can replace killing other humans with various other animals to make the situation more suitably fuzzy). But something that society doesn't allow, and judges to be wrong. Realistically, a couple of murders don't really shake up the whole society all that much, and those people killed were going to die later anyway. Heck, depending on the people killed, the murders could be beneficial to everyone around.

You're basing your argument on your own interpretation of what life is. You should show some courtesy to people who disagree with you.

Ultimately, right and wrong have to be decided and enforced, and not everyone is going to agree with the decision that people come up with. In a democracy, the majority decision could be made law (whatever that may end up being)

If I had to vote on it, I'd probably vote that women be allowed to abort. I'd prefer it not reach that stage to begin with, but accidents happen.
Perhaps the mother would have benefited from having the child - I almost think the overly self-interested would benefit from having someone their instincts will likely force them to care about.. possibly making them more decent human beings, but it doesn't seem to be worth the risk for the child, who could be ruined by such a person. If human instincts were stronger, there would be somewhat less risk.
(and yes, I'm ignoring the various other reasons for abortion in this example)

Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I disagree. Think of the days when you were expected to have large families to work the land, etc. Those were days of sex being procreation oriented. That was during the days you hear women speak of fulfilling "their wifely duties" etc. Currently sex is mostly about fun and enjoyment and desire. Unless you're trying TO get pregnant and having issues then it's about temperatures and ovulation and the right time, etc thus bringing back the time of sex being more for procreation and less about desire.

I think sex and sexual desire is what it has always been. A badly implemented system for getting people to breed and have children. That its second-rate implementation allows it to be used in other ways than actually intended, is just a failure of the system.

Without an intention to have children, a sexual relationship is ultimately a twisted type of friendship where pleasure is being given to both sides. But not a pleasure that actually serves any useful purpose. Its like taking drugs - they make you feel good and choose to do it again, but really, you haven't achieved anything, your life hasn't improved any, there's no real reason to feel better than you did before, and your body may be suffering damage. Thus the actual purpose of feeling pleasure has been violated, and it has happened because the system isn't developed well enough to safeguard against misuse.

Looking at humans from outside the perspective of being human... Really, what do we think so highly of ourselves for?


And just for the sake of it, I'm going to bring up an example that you might appreciate. Charming, charismatic, good looking men, who can get women to sleep with them, and have no interest in the women themselves, just the sex.. and they don't intend to ever have children with those women, or be in a relationship with them, even though they make the women think otherwise. What are these guys actually achieving? They are getting an experience out of it, but its costing them time and money that they could have put into something else that might have improved their lives. The women of course, are being deceived, and minus the experience not gaining anything, and likely will not be happy afterwards. Their lives also aren't actually benefited by what they just did. So what exactly was the value of the act of sex here? Does this perhaps seem wrong to you because its not how you feel things should be? Not how you think sex should be used?

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Depends on the idea and the situation. It's a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. It's a man's right to choose to be with or not be with someone based on what she says she'd do with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. Some ideas are invalid due to new information disproving said antiquated ideas.

Hmm... from an evolutionary perspective, I find that statement of who should have the right to decide iffy. Of course, you are working off of the assumption that an individual should have absolute rights on their body, and that individuals are independently valuable, beholden to no one, and exist without respect to the species they are part of, having no real responsibilities to it --> Gods.

Without the assumption of a soul, I'd personally consider a human's existence as having meaning only with respect to the species, and almost not at all, individually. An insignificant existence wiped out in the blink of an eye, as time goes.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by JustMel View Post I've already stated that it's not okay for someone who isn't pro-choice to push their moral beliefs on someone else. Abortion is not about morality it's about personal choice.

And it is that way, because you say it is. And if anyone disagrees with you, they're nuts. Moral acts are those which serve the better interests of society. In comparison to society, the wants of individuals can be ignored. Just like a murderer can be robbed even of his own life, by society. The person did what he wanted, what he believed to be the right choice, something that was within his capabilities to do(you can replace killing other humans with various other animals to make the situation more suitably fuzzy). But something that society doesn't allow, and judges to be wrong. Realistically, a couple of murders don't really shake up the whole society all that much, and those people killed were going to die later anyway. Heck, depending on the people killed, the murders could be beneficial to everyone around. You're basing your argument on your own interpretation of what life is. You should show some courtesy to people who disagree with you.

And you're basing your opinions on what you think life is so try showing some of what you expect others to show. Won't change my mind but hey anything's worth a try once.

I don't believe that I have a moral right to tell ANYONE that they have to continue a pregnancy they don't want to continue. By the same flip of the coin I don't believe anyone else has a right to tell me or any other woman we don't have the option to abort.

You can argue that morals are for the betterment of society as a whole vs the individual and I disagree. I believe that morals are relative to the individual person and not to society. If morals were the same for everyone then you'd have the same sentence for every crime, etc. and they'd all be based on what society said the moral value should be. It doesn't happen that way because the law and morals are open to interpretation. Therefore it's a PERSONAL choice.

	Ultimately, right and wrong have to be decided and enforced, and not everyone is going to agree with the decision that people come up with. In a democracy, the majority decision could be made law (whatever that may end up being)

The US is not a Democracy, it's a Republic with a Democratic ideal. It's not relevant to this discussion.

If I had to vote on it, I'd probably vote that women be allowed to abort. I'd prefer it not reach that stage to begin with, but accidents happen. Perhaps the mother would have benefited from having the child - I almost think the overly self-interested would benefit from having someone their instincts will likely force them to care about.. possibly making them more decent human beings, but it doesn't seem to be worth the risk for the child, who could be ruined by such a person. If human instincts were stronger, there would be somewhat less risk. (and yes, I'm ignoring the various other reasons for abortion in this example)

What about the mothers who would don't want to have the child but have it anyway due to outside pressures and it ends up being smothered or left in a dumpster? A good portion of self interested people will stay that way regardless of whether they have children or not.

Originally Posted by JustMel View Post I disagree. Think of the days when you were expected to have large families to work the land, etc. Those were days of sex being procreation oriented. That was during the days you hear women speak of fulfilling "their wifely duties" etc. Currently sex is mostly about fun and enjoyment and desire. Unless you're trying TO get pregnant and having issues then it's about temperatures and ovulation and the right time, etc thus bringing back the time of sex being more for procreation and less about desire. I think sex and sexual desire is what it has always been. A badly implemented system for getting people to breed and have children. That its second-rate implementation allows it to be used in other ways than actually intended, is just a failure of the system.

Does that mean you have no sexual desire for a mate (if you have one) outside of making children? That's an issue for Psychology not abortion.

Without an intention to have children, a sexual relationship is ultimately a twisted type of friendship where pleasure is being given to both sides. But not a pleasure that actually serves any useful purpose. Its like taking drugs - they make you feel good and choose to do it again, but really, you haven't achieved anything, your life hasn't improved any, there's no real reason to feel better than you did before, and your body may be suffering damage. Thus the actual purpose of feeling pleasure has been violated, and it has happened because the system isn't developed well enough to safeguard against misuse.

If I didn't think you were serious I'd laugh instead I have to just shake my head. Have you ever been in a relationship that was close and shared intimacy? You should be friends with your mate and the person you choose to have children with but there is nothing twisted about the desire to be close to someone, sexually linked with someone for the pure pleasure of the act. Who are you to say that having sex didn't bring someone closer together and improve their life? talk about a god complex.

And just for the sake of it, I'm going to bring up an example that you might appreciate. Charming, charismatic, good looking men, who can get women to sleep with them, and have no interest in the women themselves, just the sex.. and they don't intend to ever have children with those women, or be in a relationship with them, even though they make the women think otherwise. What are these guys actually achieving? They are getting an experience out of it, but its costing them time and money that they could have put into something else that might have improved their lives. The women of course, are being deceived, and minus the experience not gaining anything, and likely will not be happy afterwards. Their lives also aren't actually benefited by what they just did. So what exactly was the value of the act of sex here? Does this perhaps seem wrong to you because its not how you feel things should be? Not how you think sex should be used?

So because someone might mistreat and mislead someone no one should be having sex outside of procreation? There will be ways to manipulate people regardless of sex. Who are you to say they might not have spent that same money and time on something worse like snorting cocaine off a hooker's ass? I would hope that the women and men for that matter would learn a bit about life and human interaction. If you learn from an experience, even a bad experience, you've learned something.

	Originally Posted by JustMel View Post Depends on the idea and the situation. It's a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. It's a man's right to choose to be with or not be with someone based on what she says she'd do with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. Some ideas are invalid due to new information disproving said antiquated ideas.

	Hmm... from an evolutionary perspective, I find that statement of who should have the right to decide iffy. Of course, you are working off of the assumption that an individual should have absolute rights on their body, and that individuals are independently valuable, beholden to no one, and exist without respect to the species they are part of, having no real responsibilities to it --> Gods.

You don't believe that any one person is independently valuable? I say that as a female it's my choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not. I agree that a man should have some say and his wishes be considered but ultimately it's up to the female. I appreciate that a man may want the child and would be a good parent but I can't say that outweighs forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want.

	Without the assumption of a soul, I'd personally consider a human's existence as having meaning only with respect to the species, and almost not at all, individually. An insignificant existence wiped out in the blink of an eye, as time goes.

All existence will be wiped out in the blink of an eye. Humans have an average life of approx 70 years and the earth and planets are how old?

[blatant]

abortions are pretty much guaranteed to be available, no matter their legal status. the rich ones, of course, will be better off than the poorer ones then.

Not a big fan of either side, but I will say pro-choice just to be safe. Human lives are vastly overrated unless you know the person emotionally.

Plus, pro-life people always hold those obnoxious events and protests. I personally get a kick out of telling people who try to hand me prolifepropaganda that I am going to get at least 2 abortions in their honor.

[Antares]

Let's say, it is detrimental for a child to be brought into the world by a drug addict, who has neither the money or capacity to take care of it - but who wants the child. Sorry, I don't see the child or society benefiting from letting this woman do what she wants. This woman is part of the society, and subject to its will (much like a murderer is subject to society's will). The body may be theirs, but as far as the government is concerned, people do not have the right to just use it as they please. Otherwise, you'd be able to kill and steal, and it would be your right.

So basically, in your ideal world, liberty is sung about but like a cheating spouse's promises, never actually real. Allow me to explain. A pro-choice proponent means "right to use one's body" as a right to control what goes on in a person's body, not to flail their limbs in any direction they like or use their hand to molest some 10 year old. In addition, how do you know the woman won't "act up", get a decent job and provide for the child like any responsible parent? It's quite reasonable to roll your eyes and laugh at that proposition, but it's still a possibility. Why should the government get to control (or ruin) someone's life by their perception of reality? Sure, she may still be on crack 20 years from now; an alcoholic might still finds him/herself piss drunk every night (or day, or both), but without giving them the benefit of doubt, the government'd have tied a dead knot to the future of many people. You might as well do the planned government thing and put me in a music college; with or without my consent, just because I happen to be doing well in that field at the moment and have a good chance of successfully entertaining some drunkards in a bar (kidding).

.. As for the woman herself... I'm not sure its a positive personality characteristic to be willing to kill a potential child of your own because the kid inconveniences you. I think making such a choice, like commiting any other harsh act, changes you a little... Personally, I'd say that even if the decision to allow abortion is based on the woman's own desire, it should kinda come from the government, thus shifting the blame a little, and reducing the emotional effects of that choice.

To put things in perspective, where do you stand on the political spectrum? It'd help explain lots. In other words, you think it's good for the woman if the government has some hand in endorsing the abortion? You're assuming a lot here. 1. The government knows better what's good for the woman than she does herself. 2. The government must address the emotional consequences of abortion, whether or not it's their business; whether or not some women are just not traumatized by abortion. And as you said, the fetus is a POTENTIAL child. Depending on the state of development, a fetus may be about as large as a tapeworm, as developed as a plankton or as thoughtful as a crocodile. Only because the fetus happens to have 23 pairs of chromosomes, it should be considered a child or something similar? Bathing (thus killing lots of microbes) is not harsh; spraying insecticide into a colony of ants is not cruel, but terminating the development of a zygote is?

In either case, a decision is being made about what constitutes a valid human being that has rights, and should be allowed to live. That you think a newly conceived child isn't human and can be discarded as trash is your interpretation, and not one that everyone agrees with. A child of two years of age, that could not contribute to anything in any useful way, and barely comprehend anything, could as well be judged as worthless, even if it has potential to be more... a viewpoint that not everyone would agree with.

Granted, my main concern is not whether or not a fetus is a valid human, but I'll try to address your arguments. As long as a woman is still pregnant, the fetus is a parasite, and in my opinion, the woman has a choice of whether or not to drive it out. In early pregnancies, "driving it out" usually means death of the fetus without incubators, and in many cases, with or without incubators. My idea of humanity is: 1. When the organism is independent physically (is no longer parasitic and risks the health of another). 2. When the organism achieves abilities of higher intelligence that set it apart from animals that society thinks is "ok" to kill.

[Zsych]

@Antares: I don't have a very high opinion of the vast majority of humans. I believe that the system should work well, and people should benefit from it. Controls need to be in place to stop individuals from harming the collective.

The real question I suppose is where the correct balance lies. But anyway, words like liberty and freedom, are just ideas. Not ideas that fully exist in reality, and not always good when taken in perspective. Like again, in the concept of a murderer. You could give him endless freedom to do what he wants, just like everyone else. But vague supposedly positive ideas are too simple to be used to make any real decisions.
Sure we want freedom of speech - but that assumes people are sensible. If hate mongers screw up the world, letting them have that right would be a complete blunder.

As far as politics go, I don't follow any specific policy. In this situation, IMO, people think too highly of humans and the choices they commonly make.

And I already said that I'm okay with abortion.

	My idea of humanity is: 1. When the organism is independent physically (is no longer parasitic and risks the health of another). 2. When the organism achieves abilities of higher intelligence that set it apart from animals that society thinks is "ok" to kill.

Where we've hit 'society this is "ok" to kill'. Cows probably have more intelligence and comprehension than a baby human, and a baby is still parasitic even if its outside the body...
Ultimately this just comes down to be a matter of perspective.

@JustMel:
First off, I don't believe humans have any intrinsic rights. There is no God supporting your right to breathe even. I essentially consider what you are allowed to do within a society (or the world in general, with forces outside of our control effecting us) privileges.

The problem with analyzing humans and what is generally beneficial is that if you analyze with respect to yourself and how you would want things to be in your own life, that's not necessarily a decision that benefits everyone, or even you yourself... Especially so for stupid people.
My difference of opinion is not from what we want, but from my understanding of what the system is - or rather, what the underlying principles are, whether or not they are working right.

If a man overeats, makes himself obese, and overall harms himself in the long run. His decision, and the underlying system that helped him see that decision as right, is defective. You see the difference is in looking at the choice from within the system with your emotions attached, and from outside the system without your emotions attached.

As far as my personal feelings go, I have no objection to abortions. Its exact morality, and the overall side-effects of the choice both for individuals and society, and what other choices could come to be made in time, after this choice... those things are debateable and hard to determine.
Let people be a little more self-centered, and killing a newborn baby that inconveniences you might not seem like such a bad thing. Change the definition of human to requiring some level of ability to take care of yourself, and that changes the game in a huge way.
... We may not think that way, but societies views on things are evolving without a definite direction or any great insight. So you can't say what people a hundred years from now will think. Killing living babies who were found defective has been done by people in the past and considered completely right.

I wnat an objective system of analysis, based on what actually benefits people, as opposed to society level choices based on emotion.

(and yes I've been in relationships, and care for people. My personal values are born of my own life. Not all of them are rational or based in any particularly intelligent view of things that automatically leads to correct decisions... There is 'what I want', and then there is the question of what would actually be good, even if I don't personally want it)

I think human society is complex. I think that the effects of our choices can be far reaching, and shouldn't be based on emotional decisions - emotions IMO, are just a primitive animal style decision making tool... they don't take very much into account. Like the fat man who overeats, the decision made isn't necessarily a good one. In a case like that, you can even tell clearly that its a bad idea (most of the time)

And as with my point about being careful about obviously dangerous mothers having kids. Where you have to remain practical, the point is that the system shouldn't be overly simple, based on vague ideas. Like a movie that has an interesting idea but sucks, its about the details. Where you couldn't make it a perfect case by case thing, I personally think that what a person should do or be allowed to do, really does depend on the person and the circumstances. In some cases, the government actually could help people make choices that are better for them.
(Theoretically... practically, they're not much more impressive than the average people, and thus not really that much more worthy of making choices that effect everyone :P )

... In other words, I'm being highly theoretical here.
For the short term, immediate decision, I don't see it making things much worse that they are, and possibly benefiting things, so I'd say women are better off with the choice to abort.

EDIT:
Going to further explain my viewpoint with an example.

Exagerrated case though it is, imagine a serial killer/rapist, who is an intelligent person, and lives in a society that allows such behavior... and this person has the right to make a law to ban this behavior. You see, if he goes with his feelings and desires as the basis of the judgement, he's going to choose to not do the ban. If he uses his intelligence, he may see that where he wants it, and others are okay with it... its not necessarily something that will result in the long term good.... It even puts himself at risk in the long run.
My point here is merely that emotions and desires shouldn't dictate laws that exist for the betterment of the people of a country.

The decision regarding abortion should be based on what is judged to be beneficial, and not because of just one side's definition of life, or the other side's belief that they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Its a matter of "abortion causes and resolves so many problems in society, and banning it causes and resolves so many problems in society, so by our best estimate, if you need one law to apply to all cases, as opposed to multiple laws for different cases... we will make xxx the law"... IMO.

[jesse]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Except that your responsibility is to promote your DNA, on the assumption that you are a worthwhile being, and your DNA deserves to continue existing more than that of others. Raising other people's children is all well and good, but if you are worth something, then it is important for that worth to remain in the system... if you believe most people and the people who's children you adopt were superior to you, then not having children may be perfectly fine To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We're beyond those critical moments in time where unless you breed right now, there will be no future for humanity. And where exactly are you taking this notion of having a duty to promote your own lineage? This has the stench of religion engraved very deeply, imo.

What's your point? Being an excellent parent does not have the requisite of bring up your own flesh and blood. Big deal if it's your own kid or someone else's who abandoned it for whatever reason, the end result is what counts, not some peculiar claim to fame because the kiddie is directly derived from half of your genes. Only so much is determined by genetics, there's also plenty you can influence through nurture and some dedication.

[Alex]

Zsych - in response to that gigantically large post (that I, for obvious reasons, will not quote), I think I've somewhat deduced your point-of-view and where it comes from, and I'd like to rather definitively respond to it with thus:

I have no responsibility to humanity. If something would advance, or glorify, or give humanity more purpose - great, but I have absolutely no obligation to be a part of it. I am not going to sacrifice my rights and my personal plans in life just "for the greater good of humanity", when that "greater good" is questionable at best. I am not obligated to submit to my baser instincts because such is what sex is supposedly an evolutionary product of.

And whether or not I do anything to "earn" a higher distinction among human beings - whether or not I invent a life-saving vaccine or invent a revolutionary device - doesn't mean that I or others like me are obligated to simply shove on as slaves to nature.

In short - people are selfish, and if you believe that bitterly philosophizing at them will change that, you're dreaming. As far as I see it, I get one go-round in this life. I get one chance to live, one chance to enjoy myself, one chance to make my life and legacy (if I even have one) exactly what I want it to be. As a being of higher-reasoning, I have at least adopted the attitude that, whatsoever I do for myself, it will never be at another man's expense or detriment. I don't hurt anyone, I expect them not to hurt me. That's as far as any "obligation" I feel to anyone or anything as a massive collective goes.

Other than that, my allegiances are to myself, my family, and my friends, and I don't believe I owe any more than that to anyone or anything. I don't care if how or why I choose to have sex makes sense to anyone else. I don't care if it reflects well or poorly upon some imagined looker-on of the collective of humanity. I never asked for the life I have, and thus, I refuse to feel some sense of ambassadorship - like I ought to fulfill these inherent traits of humanity, or "get back to nature", or anything of that sort. If my life doesn't make sense to you? Whatever. It has ZERO effect on me if 99% of the world's population doesn't like or understand my decisions.

I'm here for me, dude. And I say that having what I consider is a far more developed awareness of others than I feel the average person even has - the ones whose everyday foibles convey the idea that they could care less who they step on or inconvenience in life. I actually do attempt to be accommodating and considerate, even if I'm THE only one in a given scenario, but as far as the weightier issues in life - it's The Alex Show, buck. If others want to live for everyone else, or live as examples, or become a martyr to prove how far we pathetic humans have strayed off course - have at it. I personally can't muster the concern, because humanity is bigger than me, and I'd spend my whole life trying to unravel that ball of yarn. Instead, I enjoy life as much as possible without treading over the boundary of anyone else's. That's my job. That's humanity and being human, in a nutshell, in my book.

[themuzicman]

Can we discuss further whether a woman who is pregnant from consensual sex is having her womb used "against her will"?

It seems to me that most women know that engaging in sex has the potential to result in pregnancy, and, as such, she has invited a fetus to take up residence in her womb, of her own free will, when she engages in sex. Yes, I know she may not want to actually be pregnant, but regardless of what she wants, she knowingly and willingly creates that possibility.

So, when it happens, how is her womb being used against her will? She initiated the process. As an analogy, one might say that an abortion is a tragic breach of contract.

[Alex]

	Can we discuss further whether a woman who is pregnant from consensual sex is having her womb used "against her will"?

We can, but there's not really a point, since consenting to sex is just that - consenting to sex. Consenting to sex is no more consenting to a fetus taking up residence in one's womb than having a blood transfusion is consenting to contract AIDS. It's a RISK, and either a high or low risk depending on external factors, but the act of sex itself is not consent to pregnancy.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Alex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We can, but there's not really a point, since consenting to sex is just that - consenting to sex. Consenting to sex is no more consenting to a fetus taking up residence in one's womb than having a blood transfusion is consenting to contract AIDS. It's a RISK, and either a high or low risk depending on external factors, but the act of sex itself is not consent to pregnancy.

It isn't? You mean you were forced to take a pint of blood? Of course you are consenting. You are consenting to receive into your body whatever is in that blood bag, and the consequences that go with it. Now, you have have recourse against someone who put or allowed something to be there that should have been there. But if you sign that consent form, you consent to have whatever is put into that bag into your body. It certainly isn't there against your will. You may not have wanted it to happen, but you can't say that you didn't know the possible consequences.

Now, the discussion about what to do after the consequences happen is another discussion.

So, did you sign the consent form... or not?

[Alex]

Alright, let me rephrase - sex is not consent to a CONTINUED pregnancy. It might be a risk of intercourse, and pregnancy may be an unfortunate side effect, but when I use the term "womb used against her will", I mean it in the sense of argument against those who are adamant that all pregnancies be carried to term.

I think it would be fair to say the same situation would exist if a lifelong smoker were legally, by our government, denied cancer treatment because of a random moral conflict that may not apply to everyone. The guy smoked, he consented to the risks of the cancer, but beyond a certain point that he is denied the ability to correct the problem, the cancer (I'd say) is being kept in his body against his will.

Or, if you want another example, marital rape. I might have once consented to my husband, or a hundred times, and I might have even consented to a particular act up to the point of penetration. But if I say "Stop" - perhaps because it hurts, or I suddenly don't feel well, or something beckons of more importance - and he doesn't, I'd say it has gone from consensual to non-consensual. And moreover, I'd say that's fair.

	Now, the discussion about what to do after the consequences happen is another discussion.

Well, not really, because one is specifically being used to lead to a point about the other.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Alex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Alright, let me rephrase - sex is not consent to a CONTINUED pregnancy. It might be a risk of intercourse, and pregnancy may be an unfortunate side effect, but when I use the term "womb used against her will", I mean it in the sense of argument against those who are adamant that all pregnancies be carried to term.

Why is that unreasonable? Again, assuming consent, both accepted the risk of pregnancy, and the consequences. Why is it unreasonable for the fetus to expect to be given a chance to live, barring some medical problem?

I think it would be fair to say the same situation would exist if a lifelong smoker were legally, by our government, denied cancer treatment because of a random moral conflict that may not apply to everyone. The guy smoked, he consented to the risks of the cancer, but beyond a certain point that he is denied the ability to correct the problem, the cancer (I'd say) is being kept in his body against his will.

But the cancer is killing him. There is a harmful effect on his body. Defense against things that are killing you is acceptable.

Or, if you want another example, marital rape. I might have once consented to my husband, or a hundred times, and I might have even consented to a particular act up to the point of penetration. But if I say "Stop" - perhaps because it hurts, or I suddenly don't feel well, or something beckons of more importance - and he doesn't, I'd say it has gone from consensual to non-consensual. And moreover, I'd say that's fair.

I agree, but that has no bearing on the conversation at hand. We aren't talking about a condition where the fetus can just simply stop doing what the woman initiated.

	Well, not really, because one is specifically being used to lead to a point about the other.

But the original point remains: The fetus came into existence through the knowing and consensual activity of the woman (and a man, presumably). Thus, she has given consent to the use of her womb for such time as the fetus will need it.

Think of it as a lease situation. I open a new business and sign a lease. The lessor consents willingly to allowing me the use of his property for a time. He can't just suddenly change his mind and kick me out before the lease is up, provided I am not causing him any harm.

[dofe]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But the original point remains: The fetus came into existence through the knowing and consensual activity of the woman (and a man, presumably). Thus, she has given consent to the use of her womb for such time as the fetus will need it. Think of it as a lease situation. I open a new business and sign a lease. The lessor consents willingly to allowing me the use of his property for a time. He can't just suddenly change his mind and kick me out before the lease is up, provided I am not causing him any harm.

When you sign a lease, the contract will almost always contain provisions which you must abide by. For example, the terms of the lease agreement may provide that the lease is voidable in the event that you use the leased premises in ways prohibited by the agreement (excessive noise, running a sex shop, etc).

If we are to analogize consensual sex to a lease (an illogical stretch IMO), then it's arguable that pregnancy likely falls within the category of voidable actions. Seriously, the idea that a woman consenting to sex somehow equates to her giving consent for "the use of her womb for such time as the fetus will need it" is just incredulous, not to mention borderline misogynous.

In any case, like I mentioned, I find the analogy of consensual sex to a lease to be completely illogical. For a valid contract to exist, you need to have, inter alia, a meeting of the minds. I seriously find the idea that a couple about to engage in sex have somehow agreed to have a child to stretch the bounds of credibility.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by dofe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When you sign a lease, the contract will almost always contain provisions which you must abide by. For example, the terms of the lease agreement may provide that the lease is voidable in the event that you use the leased premises in ways prohibited by the agreement (excessive noise, running a sex shop, etc).

Correct.

	If we are to analogize consensual sex to a lease (an illogical stretch IMO), then it's arguable that pregnancy likely falls within the category of voidable actions. Seriously, the idea that a woman consenting to sex somehow equates to her giving consent for "the use of her womb for such time as the fetus will need it" is just incredulous, not to mention borderline misogynous.

I was analogizing pregnancy, not sex. Thus, the presence of the fetus is one that the woman willingly consented to, just like me moving into a leased store front. Pregnancy has a limited term, specific conditions, and known termination conditions. Why this is incredulous is beyond me. It certainly isn't misogynist to ask someone to fulfill their obligations to another human being.

	In any case, like I mentioned, I find the analogy of consensual sex to a lease to be completely illogical. For a valid contract to exist, you need to have, inter alia, a meeting of the minds. I seriously find the idea that a couple about to engage in sex have somehow agreed to have a child to stretch the bounds of credibility.

While I can see your point about the couple not engaging their brains when headed for sex (due to lack of blood in the brain
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, both have knowledge of what may happen. This is an ipso facto agreement to accept those consequences. Certainly the man has no option to "opt out" should the woman choose to give birth. That seems rather misoadrist.

[SelfMadeBum]

I am staunchly pro-choice... that is all.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[dofe]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was analogizing pregnancy, not sex. Thus, the presence of the fetus is one that the woman willingly consented to, just like me moving into a leased store front. Pregnancy has a limited term, specific conditions, and known termination conditions. Why this is incredulous is beyond me. It certainly isn't misogynist to ask someone to fulfill their obligations to another human being.

Well, now we're back at square one and arguing about when a fetus becomes a human being, aren't we?

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

While I can see your point about the couple not engaging their brains when headed for sex (due to lack of blood in the brain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , both have knowledge of what may happen. This is an ipso facto agreement to accept those consequences. Certainly the man has no option to "opt out" should the woman choose to give birth. That seems rather misoadrist.

It's certainly not a fair bargain, I agree. On the other hand, until the day medical science can provide a way for men to carry a fetus for nine months, women's comperatively greater say in the outcome of a pregnancy is not something I'm uncomfortable with simply due to the fact that they carry a heavier burden (literally and figuratively) than men currently do.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by dofe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, now we're back at square one and arguing about when a fetus becomes a human being, aren't we?

Not really. We could put "fetus" there, and it would be the same argument. It's presence is the natural and expected consequence of the man and woman's actions. Thus, there should be an expectation that both will accept the consequences of those willing acts.

	It's certainly not a fair bargain, I agree. On the other hand, until the day medical science can provide a way for men to carry a fetus for nine months, women's comperatively greater say in the outcome of a pregnancy is not something I'm uncomfortable with simply due to the fact that they carry a heavier burden (literally and figuratively) than men currently do.

I have no doubt that this is the case. The real question comes down to whether the fetus came to be in the mother's womb and uses her body "against her will." Clearly this is not the case, as the woman accept the risk willingly, just as the man accepted the risk of having to pay child support for 22 years, willingly.

[Prunesquallor]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not really. We could put "fetus" there, and it would be the same argument. It's presence is the natural and expected consequence of the man and woman's actions. Thus, there should be an expectation that both will accept the consequences of those willing acts. I have no doubt that this is the case. The real question comes down to whether the fetus came to be in the mother's womb and uses her body "against her will." Clearly this is not the case, as the woman accept the risk willingly, just as the man accepted the risk of having to pay child support for 22 years, willingly.

An expected consequence of protected sex? I think not.

Just as someone who gets a blood transplantwillingly accepts the risks of it being contaminated with AIDS. But the right to treatment - to fixing the problem - isn't denied him on that basis - only on the basis that he's poor.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Prunesquallor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	An expected consequence of protected sex? I think not.

No? I think every adult realizes that "protected" only reduces the chances. It doesn't eliminate them.

	Just as someone who gets a blood transplantwillingly accepts the risks of it being contaminated with AIDS. But the right to treatment - to fixing the problem - isn't denied him on that basis - only on the basis that he's poor.

No, he gets treatment because the virus is killing him.

[Prunesquallor]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No? I think every adult realizes that "protected" only reduces the chances. It doesn't eliminate them. No, he gets treatment because the virus is killing him.

No, it doesn not eliminate them. But a possible risk one has attempted to negate is not the same as an "expected consequence."
More importantly, an awareness of an outside possibility of said negative consequence does not deny someone the right of taking action against the negative consequences.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Prunesquallor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, it doesn not eliminate them. But a possible risk one has attempted to negate is not the same as an "expected consequence."

Sure it is. People have know since we have had intelligence that intercourse results in pregnancy. It is an expected result, even if you don't want it to happen.

	More importantly, an awareness of an outside possibility of said negative consequence does not deny someone the right of taking action against the negative consequences.

To prevent them, I am in complete agreement. However, once the consequence has occurred, the one must accept them. At that point, the womb is willingly occupied, and the body willingly given up for use, just as in the analogy of the lease.

[Prunesquallor]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sure it is. People have know since we have had intelligence that intercourse results in pregnancy. It is an expected result, even if you don't want it to happen.

No, it is a possible result. If I have protected sex, I do not expect to get pregnant - or I would not be having sex. Or perhaps I'd not bother to use birth control, since pregnancy is the obvious result. It is not inevitable, it is not likely, it is not expected, it is merely possible.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To prevent them, I am in complete agreement. However, once the consequence has occurred, the one must accept them. At that point, the womb is willingly occupied, and the body willingly given up for use, just as in the analogy of the lease.

So someone who is ill, must accept illness without treating it? So someone who gets hit by a car must merely accept their pain, without addressing it? So someone who takes the risk of smoking in their house, must accept it burning down without stopping it, since they accepted the risk originally?

This is foolish and inane. At no point does one lose the right to act in one's own best interests.

This is not consequences. This is punishment. The "consequence" of pregnancy happens. Pregnancy carried to term is not an inevitable consequence and it is not one a woman willing to take the necessary steps is accepting by engaging in intercourse. Neither is it one which ought be shoved down her throat because of some irrelevant person's personal moral scruples.

Edit: I think you're confusing "pregnancy as a natural consequence" (which comes with all the ensuing possible choices one has for dealing with that situation) with "the forced continuation of pregnancy as a (not-so-natural and most certainly not inevitable) consequence"

[dofe]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not really. We could put "fetus" there, and it would be the same argument. It's presence is the natural and expected consequence of the man and woman's actions. Thus, there should be an expectation that both will accept the consequences of those willing acts.

First, pregnancy is certainly not an expected consequence. If sex led to pregnancy 90% of the time, then, yes, that would be an expected consequence. However, that's clearly not the case.

Second, the statement that "there should be an expectation that both will accept the consequences of those willing acts" is heavily loaded with value judgments that are not necessarily universal and impractically rigid. I'd rather not rehash arguments that have already been discussed, but I think banning abortions on the draconian basis that "you need to accept consequences of your actions" ignores the complexities of real life.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have no doubt that this is the case. The real question comes down to whether the fetus came to be in the mother's womb and uses her body "against her will." Clearly this is not the case, as the woman accept the risk willingly, just as the man accepted the risk of having to pay child support for 22 years, willingly.

That's certainly a valid point of view -- the problem I have with it is that it requires the presumption that the fetus has equal rights as the mother, which is debatable depending on the developmental period and the mother's health.

As far as the issue of men's financial responsibilities, that's certainly not comparable to the responsibilities women face during pregnancy. Forcing someone to pay child support is one thing, but forcing an unwilling or unprepared woman to undergo pregnancy is quite another. I'm by no means ignoring the real burden of paying child support, but monetary payment as a "consequence' is less onerous than forcing a woman to carry a fetus through the full term and delivery.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Prunesquallor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, it is a possible result. If I have protected sex, I do not expect to get pregnant - or I would not be having sex. Or perhaps I'd not bother to use birth control, since pregnancy is the obvious result. It is not inevitable, it is not likely, it is not expected, it is merely possible.

Then you are naive.

	So someone who is ill, must accept illness without treating it? So someone who gets hit by a car must merely accept their pain, without addressing it? So someone who takes the risk of smoking in their house, must accept it burning down without stopping it, since they accepted the risk originally?

Not at all. A disease is harming the individual, and thus must be cured. The consequences of a car accident may be repaired. There is no further obligation there, the car isn't using your body. Certainly the prevention of consequences in places where risks are taken is valid, and the prevention of property loss, as well.

	This is foolish and inane. At no point does one lose the right to act in one's own best interests.

This is simply a patently false statement. I go back to my lease example. I have the lease of a building for a year. The leassor gets an offer to lease it for 2x the amount. He can't simply kick me out, since his signing the lease has consequences, regardless of his best interests.

Same thing.

	This is not consequences. This is punishment. The "consequence" of pregnancy happens. Pregnancy carried to term is not an inevitable consequence and it is not one a woman willing to take the necessary steps is accepting by engaging in intercourse. Neither is it one which ought be shoved down her throat because of some irrelevant person's personal moral scruples.

Punishment? How is pregnancy punishment? No outside force is imposing pregnancy on anyone. The woman is pregnant by her own willing consent. Saying that her body is being used against her will is an invalid argument.

(FYI, I never said that pregnancy was an inevitable consequence. I said it was a consequence, which it is one of many.)





themuzicman added to this post, 3 minutes and 44 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by dofe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First, pregnancy is certainly not an expected consequence. If sex led to pregnancy 90% of the time, then, yes, that would be an expected consequence. However, that's clearly not the case.

Why? Sex has been the primary means of pregnancy since the dawn of time. Why would one not expect that as a result?

Second, the statement that "there should be an expectation that both will accept the consequences of those willing acts" is heavily loaded with value judgments that are not necessarily universal and impractically rigid. I'd rather not rehash arguments that have already been discussed, but I think banning abortions on the draconian basis that "you need to accept consequences of your actions" ignores the complexities of real life.

I've not suggested anything of the sort. I'm dealing with the argument that somehow a fetus is using a woman's body "against her will."

	That's certainly a valid point of view -- the problem I have with it is that it requires the presumption that the fetus has equal rights as the mother, which is debatable depending on the developmental period and the mother's health.

The relative value isn't all that important to the present argument. The fetus is there as a consequence of the willing actions of the woman. Thus, it isn't there, and isn't developing "against her will." She signed the lease, as it were.

	As far as the issue of men's financial responsibilities, that's certainly not comparable to the responsibilities women face during pregnancy. Forcing someone to pay child support is one thing, but forcing an unwilling or unprepared woman to undergo pregnancy is quite another.

One lasts 9 months, the other 22 years.

	I'm by no means ignoring the real burden of paying child support, but monetary payment as a "consequence' is less onerous than forcing a woman to carry a fetus through the full term and delivery.

Some might argue with that. I don't think it's relevant to the core point, tho.