Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Feb 17, 2012.
Virginia rapin' errbody out hea.
I think there's a fair argument for removing Even, too. You never really specified which of your two absolute pronouncements takes precedence when a woman opts for an abortion so early that the only way to get the images you want is to do an invasive procedure.
Look wannasee....I admire you sticking to your beliefs. I know where you're coming from, as I used to feel the same way. But abortion is NOT a simple right-or-wrong issue. It would be GREAT if it was, but it's NOT and it never will be.
Kind of a double-edged sword here...while I hope and pray that you never know any woman who ever has to get an abortion....if you ever do, it is going to open your eyes to just how muddy the waters are.
If he thought something was ambiguous, he should have sought clarification. That would have shown him to be a very careful reader indeed.
Since he didn't do that, he stays.
Oh, I'm sure there will be tears on his pillow tonight over that.
wannasee, I have just finished reading this entire thread. I want you to know that I have read each one of your posts carefully, and that your arguement has persuaded me.....
....that abortion should be legal.
Please read this post carefully. I would hate to have you misunderstand what I'm trying to say here.
I get what you're trying to say, and considering there has already been a warning about personal attacks in this thread you really shouldn't have said it.
This thread is on course for locking. Get back to discussing the (now dead) bill, stop nitpicking posts and insulting each others reading comprehension.
As much as I am pro-choice, I have no way of knowing if I would really have an abortion or not until I was truly faced with that decision. I don't want to speculate as its useless. That being said, I believe that every woman has the right to have access to an an abortion should she choose to have one. The alternative, of banning them, has horrendous consequences that no one need face. It's a violation to have that choice taken away.
I think men can have good ideas too.
Do you think that the men in congress, the men in the Supreme Court, the man in the Presidency, and male judges nationwide should have no opinion?
Also, on a less serious note, but one I would like you to address anyway, am I allowed to have an opinion on who should be the Knicks' sixth man, or should I just be quiet because it doesn't affect me directly?
It just seems like you are ceding your rights as a thinking individual so as not to offend butthurt* women.
*sorry about that word. If someone knows a better word that captures the essence of butthurt, I would like to know it.
Given that men are playing catch up for centuries of repressing women, not just their reproductive rights, it's not a bad idea for them to butt out. Ideas, yes, but ultimately it is her body and men don't have uteruses and therefore their knowledge is always going to be limited.
On the bad old days, women often would often did what was best for them when men, particularly celibate men, said no.
You cannot hold present day men responsible for the past repression of women.
Besides that, you are making an emotional argument: I am angry at men for their past deeds, therefore they don't get a say.
That doesn't seem a reasonable thing to argue.
And my magnificent penis gives me knowledge that you will never have...
Edit: oh, you mean abort the child on their own... didn't get it at first.
Your penis, magnificent it as it may be, will never actually have the ability to sustain life. To begin, yes, but that's small fish compared to carrying a child for nine months. That responsibility is no something to be taken lightly or given such broad generalisations. Each situation is different and the decision is rarely taken without serious consideration. Mainly, what I think it's about is if the woman can provide the child with the life she would want them to have. Not because it's inconvenient to have the child or you're constantly getting pregnant.
That being said, there are situations where an abortion does seem the best solution: in the case of rape, especially in the case of a child being raped. There are cases where a girl of 11, 12 or 13 was raped and she was refused an abortion. Why a girl as young as that should have to go through the birth (bearing in mind her pelvis hasn't widened yet to make it easier) and having the child for the rest of her life if the situation was completely beyond her control.
Reading this conversation is equivalent to watching monkeys at the zoo fling crap at each other.
I haven't seen wannasee advocating the prohibition of abortion though.
You can have an opinion all day long, doesn't mean you should be allowed to advocate what a woman decides to do with her body, especially under emotional or physical trauma.
What is so hard to understand what that is the argument women in here are making?
He also seems to think there's no problem trying to guilt women out of it, under any circumstances.
This is why I hate threads like this... they always devolve into some school yard girl vs boy display.
wannasee has many misogynist opinions and values, yes, but he did not say that abortion should be banned, or anything along those lines. His views are backwards and insane, as far as I'm concerned, but don't put words in his mouth.
Katana, your uterus does not provide you with knowledge.... your uterus vs penis argument is idiotic.
No, he only called aborted embryos/fetuses "murder victims" (preserved in a quote despite a convenient edit) and advocated ultrasounds for all abortions which-- although he didn't realize due to speaking from ignorance-- is only possible to do transvaginally (as far as I've been able to gather) early in pregnancies.
Harpuah, I never said having a uterus gave one knowledge, rather that not having one limits one's ability to gain the experience having one does. Wannasee, on the other hand, did say this about his counterpart.
If not having a uterus limits knowledge, then what does having a uterus do?
Makes us sexy
No, I don't really know what that quote has to do with anything.
Thank you, Marcus.
The edit was to aid the average reader at the jcc.
I knew certain people would seize upon that phrase and make a big deal of it, even though the phrase wasn't central to the point I was making. I didn't want people going off on a tangent.
I don't know why people are insinuating that the edit was some sort of cowardly act on my part. I think I have demonstrated often enough that I am not afraid to say what I think.
I never advocated for transvaginal ultrasounds. I said that I didn't support invasive techniques being used.
Perhaps I used language that wasn't clear enough for some, but my opinion has always been that I would support showing mothers the pictures if and only if they can be obtained through non-invasive means.
If anyone had bothered to ask for clarification all these misunderstandings (and name-calling) could have been avoided.