Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

If I wasn't gay, I'd get a vasectomy. I have no desire whatsoever to be a father.

It's not.

Recently, in England, a woman had to go through a long legal battle in order to get sterilized.

After having me in 1983, my mother was told she could have her tubes tied, but she needed her husband's consent.

IMO that's outrageous XFG. This is in the USA and not some Islamic or Catholic nation I take it? She needs her HUSBANDS permission???? What law says that? If I wanted a vasectomy I could get one within a week or so.

If it's inside my body and connected to my tissues, then it's an internal organ and I should be allowed to ask a doctor to remove it. I see it as ethically equivalent to an appendectomy.

Or to put it another way, if abortion is murder, eating walnuts is deforestation?

It’s not that outrageous. Ideally a marriage is between two people who are on the same page. There’s no “yours” or “mine.” Everything is “ours.” Even reproductive choices. If a husband got into marriage because BOTH agreed to have multiple children, sterilization directly affects the husband because even though HE didn’t opt for the procedure, it still takes his choice to reproduce again out of his reach. That’s not fair to the husband. If he wants more children, he’ll have to divorce her, and divorce may not be what he wants.

The opposite would be equally unfair if he were to have a vasectomy and not tell his wife. Men get denied those, too, for the exact same reasons women are.

I dunno if it’s a legal thing or if it falls under medical ethics.

Young people are brought up with this idea of 100%, absolute, unconditional sovereignty. The idea that a wife belongs to her husband or husband to wife in ANY sense of ownership or possession is completely foreign. You take all these wedding vows, but you impose all sorts of unspoken conditions on your spouse. If my wife goes crazy, she may be sick. But she’s still my wife. I won’t abandon her if she loses her mind. I won’t leave her or cheat on her if she’s suddenly unable to function sexually. I won’t abuse her if she loses her job, nor will I send her packing. People say pretty words in tuxes and behind veils and flowers, but they actually live by a completely different subtext.

I won’t say I could NEVER divorce my wife. I’m not saying that there are never circumstances that dictate difficult decisions concerning ending a marriage. I’m just saying that if the idea of belonging to another person (mutually, or course) is a problem, or the idea that two people have to answer to each other is a problem, or if you could easily cheat on or abandon your spouse, then MAYBE marriage and family isn’t the right life course to follow.

We can also say that sperm are alive and have the potential to become human beings. And when a man cums, he can ejaculate over 100 million sperm.

"I have wiped civilizations off my chest with a gray gym sock. Entire nations have flaked and crusted in the hair around my navel."

- Bill Hicks

Ok? Except I’m not sure you can compare infanticide with a food source. That’s generally regarded as cannibalism and highly frowned upon.

While we’re on the subject, what’s with women who eat their placentas?

I see your point about internal organs. Trouble is nobody ever expects an appendix to get its own place and register to vote. These kinds of arguments are a clever distraction from the real issue, which has nothing to do with what women can or cannot do with their own bodies.

The reason is because if it’s only about my body and what I do with it, then I’m justified in doing whatever I want EVEN IF that means harming another person along the way. I’m likewise denied any kind of justice if someone hurts me while they are “doing what they please with their own body.”

Any time you justify killing another person, there are deeper issues than a simple chunk of meat.

LOL we can indeed. who's to say that sperm doesn't feel pain?

A person's body is not the property of their spouse, and I've never heard of a man needing his wife's permission for a medical procedure.

What a bunch of garbage. A husband does not need his wife to sign some form so he can get a vasectomy. What if later in the marriage she decides that two periods of 16 hour agony is enough, and she doesn't want more kids?

My main reason for being anti abortion is the potential for the development of in utero tests for autism. I've met people online who are the NT parents of classic autistics, who with all of their NT "empathy" and "compassion" have told me directly that if such a thing existed, they would certainly have had an abortion, because their autistic kid has destroyed their happy lives. You know, their unselfish, all for others, empathic NT lives.

A few even posted that they would kill the kid if they could find a way to get away with it, and I reported them to internet watch groups and the law enforcement in their area, with copies of the posts, their screen name, and ip address (for those I could determine).

Rest assured, if a genetic test for autism is developed there will be mass murder of people like us. I believe that for 100%.

then society would cease to have people who think outside the box and are original/inventive and revert back to the dark age!

And even if that were the case, the solution to that problem would not be to curtail the rights of women over their own bodies. The solution is to teach society the value of autistic people, not to force people who don't want autistic children to have children they don't want. That is cruel to the children as well as to the parents. If we want people to value autistic life, the way to do that is not to take away the choice for pregnant women to have abortions. It's to teach the world that we have value and have something to contribute. Then fewer people, if they had the choice, would choose to abort a potentially autistic fetus out of fear or ignorance. But people would still have the choice, as they should, to not have children they don't want.

yes, choice is important but choice leads to selection and i doubt many people, given the choice, would want to raise children with severe difficulties... is it right to abort a child because it's not NT? or has a genetic mutation? what if you had the technology to predict the likelihood that your child will engage in criminal activities? or the fact that children may be born NT then develop serious mental illness later in their teen and "be difficult" but in other ways. should we just kill everyone who is slightly likely to become different / difficult even though environment also plays a huge role in conditioning who they will be/ is expected to be sometimes beyond the initial script of genetics?

i think we are straying into eugenics which is a topic that is much more controversial than non selective abortion in my mind.

To feel pain requires a central nervous system, pain receptors capable of sending pain signals, and a brain that is able to interpret those signals as pain. A sperm cell lacks all of those things, and a human embryo (below a certain level of development) lacks one or more of those things.

this is pretty much the copy + paste argument given by vegans. I'm pretty sure they have done studies that confirm that plants seek to avoid painful situation.

i mean, plants are intelligent enough to communicate with each other even though they lack said central nervous system. perhaps it is set up differently.