Jump to content

Questioning Abortion as an advance towards freedom


Anders Hoveland
 Share

Recommended Posts

When America acts like a democracy rather than a democratic republic, we get things like equality and recreational use. It is almost enough to restore some faith in humanity.

You do realise that half the American population feels the complete opposite?

 

 

I still don't see how the freedom to to get an abortion is an advancement towards the freedom of humanity, anymore than the freedom to own slaves promoted the freedom of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see how the freedom to to get an abortion is an advancement towards the freedom of humanity, anymore than the freedom to own slaves promoted the freedom of humanity.

It's completely possible that you value the concept of your own progeny above the vessel you'd use to create them. It's also possible you feel the need to control the actions of others that you deem unacceptable. Both explanations have ample evidence to support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing?

From setting "efficiency mandates", to telling business owners who they have to hire. Did I mention forcing people to buy health insurance?

 

and Republican party wants to forcibly insert a 6" wand up a woman's vagina and give your employer access to your medical records and demand explanations as to why your doctor prescribed you medications

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Republican party wants to forcibly insert a 6" wand up a woman's vagina

So what? If the woman wants to get an abortion, a vacuum hose still has to be shoved up her vagina. I don't see the problem.

 

If a woman is so insistent on killing her unborn child, the least she should be obligated to do is face a picture of her fetus. If she does not even know what her fetus looks like, how can she really make an informed decission in this life-or-death matter?

Edited by Anders Hoveland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing?

From setting "efficiency mandates", to telling business owners who they have to hire. Did I mention forcing people to buy health insurance?

No need for all the hand-waving. The whole telling us what to do bit is called "government", and it doesn't matter who's in charge at the time, it's what we pay them to do. What we should be concerned with is how SMART their choices are, how they choose to use the funds we give them to make our society better.

 

The fact of the matter is, no one can stop anyone from making a mistake, and no one should stop anyone from correcting a mistake. I'm sorry you assign some magical importance to newly created embryos just because they could one day be a human. Both sperm and egg are alive already and an embryo is just another stage of development. If you let it continue to develop there are all kinds of moral, financial and temporal responsibilities to be faced. The context of conception can differ greatly from the context of birth and child-rearing, and no matter how many holier-than-thou hypocrites get in the way, no one should be held responsible for unwanted biological processes. Since abortions will continue whether they're legal or not, it all boils down to how safe you want them to be and how many more resources you want to exhaust fighting the inevitable.

 

I merely wanted to address your argument from incredulity regarding freedom and liberty and how making decisions about your own body is basic to that freedom. I'm really not interested in your pointless and ultimately futile misogynistic assertions. Grow a uterus and let the government tell you what to do with it, see how it feels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing?

From setting "efficiency mandates", to telling business owners who they have to hire. Did I mention forcing people to buy health insurance?

 

 

The state forces people to buy auto insurance, do you want to drive where uninsured drivers abound? You eventually end up paying for uninsured people anyway... Personally i want to see socialistic medicine, throttle back on multi-billion dollar weapons programs and it can be done...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, it's OK for the government to force people to do things when you agree with them, but no ok when you don't agree with them.

 

Totally consistent there, Anders...

 

Isn't that what supporters of abortion are all about when they claim they are "pro-choice" ?

 

 

The fact of the matter is, no one can stop anyone from making a mistake

It's called sterilisation, and should be used on women who repeatedly get abortions over and over again.

 

 

Let's remember that even though we may never agree about what a woman's rights actually are, a human being's right to live is indisputable.

Edited by Anders Hoveland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember that even though we may never agree about what a woman's rights actually are, a human being's right to live is indisputable.

So given your unequivocal statement here, I presume it's accurate of me to claim that you stand equally firm against dropping bombs in wars, feel that the death penalty is total abomination that should cease immediately, and that all guns should be completely outlawed and ownership forbidden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember that even though we may never agree about what a woman's rights actually are, a human being's right to live is indisputable.

 

Spoken like someone who has never studied ethics a day in their life. Species membership is irrelevant; personhood is what matters. Fetuses are not people. Furthermore, they are parasites. Do you not have the right to rid yourself of parasites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that what supporters of abortion are all about when they claim they are "pro-choice" ?

 

This is a deflection which doesn't address the hypocrisy in your position.

 

Again, why is it ok for the government to force women to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure based on moral grounds, but then unacceptable for them to "force" people to get health insurance based on humanitarian grounds?

 

Let's remember that even though we may never agree about what a woman's rights actually are, a human being's right to live is indisputable.

 

a) So do you consider life and therefore human rights to begin at conception? If so, how do you feel about the fact that only ~30-40% of fertilized embryos implant in the uterine wall, while the rest spontaneously abort? This would, if these embryos are to be considered human beings be the leading cause of human mortality - in fact more than all other causes of death combined. Wouldn't this make research on heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, etc. grossly disproportionate?

 

b) Outlawing abortion doesn't lower the rate of abortions undertaken. If fact the previous link shows that the abortion rate is increasing in countries where it is outlawed, and decreasing in nations where it is legal. Providing free contraception does lower the abortion rate. Previously cited evidence shows the Republican party actively attempting to restrict and limit access to contraception. Therefore, actions by the party you support are going to increase abortion rates - something you find abhorrent. Why aren't you addressing the Republican stance on contraception - given how much you abhor population growth and abortion?

 

I'll pose a potential answer - what you actually want to control is people's reproductive and sexual behavior. At the same time as decrying freedom and demonizing the Democratic party for "big government" being involved in our everyday choices and lives, you actively want the government present in people's bedrooms and nurseries, dictating their reproductive and moral choices. Only it's easier to be to sell moral outrage to "the murder of innocents" than to advocate moral totalitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called sterilisation, and should be used on women who repeatedly get abortions over and over again.

It never ceases to amaze me when I hear this kind of inhuman, hate-filled raving coming from someone who claims some kind of moral high ground. I'm sure, in your narrow view, the vast majority of those slutty whores are out there having sex with everyone but you and something drastic needs to be done to make sure they all pay for it, no matter the context, no matter the situation. This stance on sterilization is simply the next step along the road to further hypocrisy and malevolence cloaked in the guise of "doing what's right".

 

Let's remember that even though we may never agree about what a woman's rights actually are, a human being's right to live is indisputable.

I find it shameful that you lack the ability to place yourself objectively in the positions others may face in their lifetimes while claiming the same rights as those who can. Your views are anathema to a functioning, healthy society of cooperative, intelligent, compassionate, real human beings. Even the fact that you would separate a "woman's rights" from those of "a human being's" tells me that your perspective is extremely detrimental to civilized human development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would liked answered, and I would like it answered by the people who feel this way, is why birth control and sex education is kryptonite to anti abortion people? I don't like abortion, I can't imagine having an abortion, then again I can't imagine being pregnant. But denying both abortion and birth control and sex education from the population is nothing less than despicable... A previous link that indicated that birth control actually cuts down on the number of fertilized eggs that are lost actually blows these people out of the water IMHO, it will take some really fancy tap dancing to get past that...

 

I think all these people who are so anti sex and think everyone is just laying around fucking are jealous, they lay awake at night worried that some where some place some one, is having a good time... because they can't... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all these people who are so anti sex and think everyone is just laying around fucking are jealous, they lay awake at night worried that some where some place some one, is having a good time... because they can't...

 

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the sex-positive movement. My position is that some regulation of sex through societal norms and beyond law is necessary, because the difference between sex and sex crime is a grey area even in principle. In practice, it's impossible for police forces to deal with; it's very often a third rail issue; they can't win whatever they do. The incentive is to brush it under the carpet or look the other way.

 

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

The police keep an eye on it, but don't/can't intervene.

 

As i say, all completely legal, but i have to admit to losing a couple of nights sleep over it.

 

Denying people contraception and sex education is a truly moronic reaction, but so is jumping on the sex-positive bandwagon, as you seem to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the sex-positive movement. My position is that some regulation of sex through societal norms and beyond law is necessary, because the difference between sex and sex crime is a grey area even in principle. In practice, it's impossible for police forces to deal with; it's very often a third rail issue; they can't win whatever they do. The incentive is to brush it under the carpet or look the other way.

 

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

The police keep an eye on it, but don't/can't intervene.

 

As i say, all completely legal, but i have to admit to losing a couple of nights sleep over it.

 

Denying people contraception and sex education is a truly moronic reaction, but so is jumping on the sex-positive bandwagon, as you seem to do.

 

The age of consent in your town is 16? Wow.

 

I grew up in a very sex-positive atmosphere, but myself and my peers were also taught the ramifications of sex very early. As well, the schools went to great lengths to hammer in the "no means no" meme. My adult mentors stressed that I should wait to have sex with someone I truly cared for, and someone who would respect me -- I think that was a good rule, and I followed it. The end result was that I never felt pressured to have sex as a teenager, and when I finally did meet someone who pressured me (in my 20s), I was able to fend it off without any emotional or physical harm.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, sex comes with consequences and as a result, any sex-positive "movement" has to reflect that. IMO, Sex education is not just about teaching kids the physical ramifications, but also the emotional ramifications of sexual activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

The police keep an eye on it, but don't/can't intervene.

 

I can't quite say why, but this story fills me with something analogous to dread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the sex-positive movement. My position is that some regulation of sex through societal norms and beyond law is necessary, because the difference between sex and sex crime is a grey area even in principle. In practice, it's impossible for police forces to deal with; it's very often a third rail issue; they can't win whatever they do. The incentive is to brush it under the carpet or look the other way.

 

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

The police keep an eye on it, but don't/can't intervene.

 

As i say, all completely legal, but i have to admit to losing a couple of nights sleep over it.

Since the age of consent where you live is 16, and you seem to have no restrictions about who a 16 can have sex with as many jurisdictions do, I'd say the problem isn't one of any sex-positive movement. Your jurisdiction has chosen to leave these girls to the mercy of middle-aged men when they could just as easily invoke accepted practices from other countries to keep them from being preyed on. In many countries it's illegal for someone who is either in a position of authority or beyond a certain age difference to engage in sex with even a consenting 16 year-old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The age of consent in your town is 16? Wow.

UK is 16, Denmark and Germany 14. They actually have far lower rates of teenage pregnancy... but they're traditionally more open about sex than Brits. 14 would be to young for UK as it is now, just as 16 might be too young for US at the moment.

 

I grew up in a very sex-positive atmosphere, but myself and my peers were also taught the ramifications of sex very early. As well, the schools went to great lengths to hammer in the "no means no" meme. My adult mentors stressed that I should wait to have sex with someone I truly cared for, and someone who would respect me -- I think that was a good rule, and I followed it. The end result was that I never felt pressured to have sex as a teenager, and when I finally did meet someone who pressured me (in my 20s), I was able to fend it off without any emotional or physical harm.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, sex comes with consequences and as a result, any sex-positive "movement" has to reflect that. IMO, Sex education is not just about teaching kids the physical ramifications, but also the emotional ramifications of sexual activity.

 

 

TBH, i think sex education in the UK is pretty good. There's just unusual peer pressure on teenagers right now and weak societal boundaries.

 

Since the age of consent where you live is 16, and you seem to have no restrictions about who a 16 can have sex with as many jurisdictions do, I'd say the problem isn't one of any sex-positive movement. Your jurisdiction has chosen to leave these girls to the mercy of middle-aged men when they could just as easily invoke accepted practices from other countries to keep them from being preyed on. In many countries it's illegal for someone who is either in a position of authority or beyond a certain age difference to engage in sex with even a consenting 16 year-old.

 

As i said, policing such issues is very difficult. Legislation might act as a disincentive, but the underlying problems would still be there.

Edited by randomc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the sex-positive movement. My position is that some regulation of sex through societal norms and beyond law is necessary, because the difference between sex and sex crime is a grey area even in principle. In practice, it's impossible for police forces to deal with; it's very often a third rail issue; they can't win whatever they do. The incentive is to brush it under the carpet or look the other way.

 

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

The police keep an eye on it, but don't/can't intervene.

 

As i say, all completely legal, but i have to admit to losing a couple of nights sleep over it.

 

Denying people contraception and sex education is a truly moronic reaction, but so is jumping on the sex-positive bandwagon, as you seem to do.

 

 

I'm calling bullshit on this one, this sounds too much like a the plot to a porno flick or some twisted mid life crisis fantasy.

 

No way no how is this a factual event, no significant numbers of 16 yo girls are having sex with middle aged men in any of our western societies... then to say it's some sort of organized group engaging in this behavior, bullshit on a shingle guys...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOPThreatA_2012_190612_web.pdf

 

The inquiry i thought had been published is still underway, but an assessment is given on p.13 of the above link

 

...scratch that, it's here;

 

http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/ceop_thematic_assessment_executive_summary.pdf

 

There's still another inquiry underway still to be published.

Edited by randomc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the sex-positive movement. My position is that some regulation of sex through societal norms and beyond law is necessary, because the difference between sex and sex crime is a grey area even in principle. In practice, it's impossible for police forces to deal with; it's very often a third rail issue; they can't win whatever they do. The incentive is to brush it under the carpet or look the other way.

 

First, interesting link, thanks for sharing. To address the comment above, I don't think that the exploitation of women is caused by the "sex-positive movement".

 

A definition of sex-positive I found on the internets:

Perhaps the most common definition I have seen states that sex positivity “regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, and encourages sexual pleasure and experimentation.” Proponents of this view typically emphasize the importance of consent and safe-sex, but no single sexual activity is elevated above others or is considered more or less valid. The only universally agreed upon limit in the sex-positive movement centers around the issue of consent, which means that being sex-positive does not constitute an endorsement of sexual assault, sex crimes, or non-consensual paraphilias (e.g., exhibitionism, voyeurism, beastiality).

 

According to this definition, the exploitation of young girls and boys is the antithesis of sex-positive, because exploitation, is, by its very nature, coercive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.