Abortion is Wrong?

[Central Slavia]

Then, do so. It is the same with state medicine - you are free not to go to emergency and stitch that gaping slice on your arm yourself, and it makes sense if the injury would prove you of a crime, but generally it is not the best choice.
If you would really rather do what you say instead of appearing in front of such commission , then you are just stubborn.

Poor, silly, stubborn Bottle. How could she wish to be treated as an actual adult human being instead of a creature who needs a panel to tell her how to live her life? That's just stubborn!

Thank heavens nobody's given me the right to vote, else I might exercise said right and help ensure that my government never implements panels full of panty-sniffing biology-failing sociopaths who get off on denying medical care to women.

It is, however, nice to see that they've temporarily abandoned the argument that women get abortions for fun. I'm sure they'll go back to that particular lie in a few more pages, but it's nice to have a break while they, instead, call me stupid.

No, the panel would be of doctors, and sociologists that would examine whether the abortion is best for society and for you. Why would any of them be a biology fail i have no idea, and panty-sniffing is a deviation called fetishism - such people belong to psychiatry.
As for the rest , luckily you are not the only person with vote.

[Dempublicents1]

As for the rest , luckily you are not the only person with vote.

Yes, indeed. Where would we be if we didn't hold votes about how other individuals should use their bodies? They'd actually....get to make their own decisions!!!!

[The Future Kingdom]

abortion will never be illegal soon to be legal in the world

[Central Slavia]

As for the rest , luckily you are not the only person with vote.

Yes, indeed. Where would we be if we didn't hold votes about how other individuals should use their bodies? They'd actually....get to make their own decisions!!!!

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide. It is the job of the state to direct and help him broadly, but also to cut his ability to harm others.
Unlike some ,most people are not so arrogant as to think an individual always knows better than society does

[United Russian State]

Don't tell me CS some are trying to say a human needs sex to surive still.

[Bottle]

No, the panel would be of doctors, and sociologists that would examine whether the abortion is best for society and for you.

I like that you included "sociologists," who will obviously be the most qualified to assess whether a particular woman should be forced to bear more children for The Fatherland.

One wonders, will this panel function on simple majority rules? What if all the doctors agree that an abortion is the best options, but the sociologists disagree? What if the sociologists declare a particular woman to be Unfit To Bear Young, and demand that her pregnancy be terminated?

[Dempublicents1]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

It is the job of the state to direct and help him broadly, but also to cut his ability to harm others.

I disagree that it is the job of the state to direct him in any way other than keeping him from harming others. A state that does so has become overbearing, and should be overturned.

Unlike some ,most people are not so arrogant as to think an individual always knows better than society does

Some of us realize that "lots of people say so" doesn't make a given decision right.

[Bottle]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

I'm sure he wouldn't have any objection if The State decided to force his wife to have an abortion because The Panel decided that was best.

[Central Slavia]

No, the panel would be of doctors, and sociologists that would examine whether the abortion is best for society and for you.

I like that you included "sociologists," who will obviously be the most qualified to assess whether a particular woman should be forced to bear more children for The Fatherland.

One wonders, will this panel function on simple majority rules? What if all the doctors agree that an abortion is the best options, but the sociologists disagree? What if the sociologists declare a particular woman to be Unfit To Bear Young, and demand that her pregnancy be terminated?

No, the both groups will be able to decide as a pregnancy is unwanted if it is socially undesirable as well as medically unfeasible.
Sociologists should be included to see whether the kid will have high chance of being criminal if kept.
At least then , the people who really will be better off without an (or an additional kid) will be able to solve their problems, while healthy rich women will not get abortions just of convenience.

[Central Slavia]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

I'm sure he wouldn't have any objection if The State decided to force his wife to have an abortion because The Panel decided that was best.

(i do not have wife but let us think i have)
Well in that case it would be either that it would be the child would be born degenerate, she would greatly risk health by the pregnancy, or we would be too poor to raise it properly.
In any such case i would need to agree.

[Zeppy]

(i do not have wife but let us think i have)
Well in that case it would be either that it would be the child would be born degenerate, she would greatly risk health by the pregnancy, or we would be too poor to raise it properly.
In any such case i would need to agree.

Thank you, eugenics.

[Bottle]

(i do not have wife but let us think i have)
Well in that case it would be either that it would be the child would be born degenerate, she would greatly risk health by the pregnancy, or we would be too poor to raise it properly.
In any such case i would need to agree.

Thank you, eugenics.

Good thing no such commission existed before Stephen Hawking was born...if they'd found out about his "degenerate" DNA, he'd have been screwed.

[United Russian State]

Here's another thing that is extremely unethical: using another person's body against her will.

It's hard to say it's unethical when one did action that created it. Shouldn't of had sex if so unwilling.

so you don't think rape is unethical if, for example, the woman is wearing a 'slutty' dress?

No, I would think it would be unethical, you wouldn't?

[Zeppy]

Good thing no such commission existed before Stephen Hawking was born...if they'd found out about his "degenerate" DNA, he'd have been screwed.

If dyslexia was considered "degenerate", then the whole world would have been screwed completely.

[Central Slavia]

(i do not have wife but let us think i have)
Well in that case it would be either that it would be the child would be born degenerate, she would greatly risk health by the pregnancy, or we would be too poor to raise it properly.
In any such case i would need to agree.

Thank you, eugenics.

Good thing no such commission existed before Stephen Hawking was born...if they'd found out about his "degenerate" DNA, he'd have been screwed.

You never know - the chances are higher in the healthy population. Besides the same can be said of any abortion, and also looking at the Polgar sisters for example i would argue backround plays a way more important role

[Zeppy]

You never know - the chances are higher in the healthy population. Besides the same can be said of any abortion, and also looking at the Polgar sisters for example i would argue backround plays a way more important role

I could see that it could even be more fucked up with less mates and diversity in the gene pool in the society.

[Central Slavia]

Good thing no such commission existed before Stephen Hawking was born...if they'd found out about his "degenerate" DNA, he'd have been screwed.

If dyslexia was considered "degenerate", then the whole world would have been screwed completely.

Dyslectic people do not suffer and they can work normally just like short, long sighted or astigmatic folk and people with asthma ...
Mongoloid people , people with some of the rarer syndromes ,and cystic fibrosis (the last time i checked life expectancy was not much higher than 20) are better not to be born than suffer around

[United Russian State]

There are plenty of supplies. Most people are eligible to give. They simply choose not to.

Oh some how I doubt everywhere there is enough supplies and just chose to die.

I find this interesting. Personally, I think it's much worse to take life away from someone who has experienced life and cherishes it. That causes suffering. That is a loss. If an embryo is destroyed, it never experienced life. It has no concept of life, no consciousness, no experiences to lose. There is no suffering. There is no sense of loss, at least not for the embryo.

I think it’s a loss for anther to die because one whishes to experience pleasure, and will kill the life it created to do so. Not behavior I would go around encouraging, not at all. But I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

If she was currently relying on the machine for support, you would probably have to give notice that she was to cease using it, followed by a time period in which she could look for someone with a machine they were willing to let her buy or use. If she couldn't find another machine in that time period, she would be out of luck. If she could, she would be transferred to the new machine and, if you wanted to push it, you could require her to compensate you for the time she was on your machine without your permission.

Lets assume there are no machines other machines, as a closer example. You didn’t answer my main question though, was this right and should it be allowed?

Now, let's take it to an example where your actual body was in use. Let's say that your mother needed periodic blood transfusions and you were a good match for her blood. Let's say that you periodically give blood for her use. Perhaps she has a very rare blood type, so losing the constant supply you provide would likely lead to her death. Guess what? You could stop giving at any time. No notice. No apologies. Nothing. It would be within your rights. It wouldn't matter why you wanted to stop giving. Maybe you just don't like getting stuck with the needle. Maybe you're worried that it's making you anemic. Either way, it's your body and your choice.

That’s acutely the first good point I have seen. However, I didn’t give life to her by my actions. She is not my responsibility, unlike the mother [and father] who gives life to their child, no your responsibility is to kill him or her, but to raise him or her to the best of your ability.

It’s a person’s choice now, at least her by laws, that doesn’t mean it’s not a stupid law. It is unethical for the mother to be allowed what she is doing, can hurt society, and is unethical for me doing what I did in our example. We do not allow certain choices to be made by others, and this should be one of them.

[Muravyets]

Here's a true story told to me & my friends by my old 4th grade teacher:

A friend of hers walked into the doc's office one day with her 4-year-old son. She waited about 10 minutes until he also entered.
"Why, it's good to see you again," he told her. "What can I do for you?" She hesitated slightly before asking him to abort her child. He smiled pleasantly, and replied, "How about we come to a compromise: how's about I save you the trouble and get rid of that kid on your lap." (pointing to her son).
She gasped in astonishment and said "I'd never let you."
"That's what you're asking me to do with your other son," he told her.
She looked down momentarily, then walked out of the room and thought about it.

In the end, she had 7 kids altogether.

is that a GOOD story? i find it kinda creepy.

Kinda creepy, Ash? One wonders where the doctor took his courses in bedside manner, if he took any at all.

im feeling very sorry for the woman so pressed that she had to take her 4 year old in with her for an abortion consultation.

That, too. But like all such parables, the story only includes the parts that the teller needs to make his point. Nothing said about why the woman thought she wanted an abortion, for instance.

Well, obviously, she wanted an abortion because she was a stupid, selfish, murderous woman who just wantonly kills for her own convenience until some man teaches her right from wrong and how to obey.

[Muravyets]

Here's a true story told to me & my friends by my old 4th grade teacher:

A friend of hers walked into the doc's office one day with her 4-year-old son. She waited about 10 minutes until he also entered.
"Why, it's good to see you again," he told her. "What can I do for you?" She hesitated slightly before asking him to abort her child. He smiled pleasantly, and replied, "How about we come to a compromise: how's about I save you the trouble and get rid of that kid on your lap." (pointing to her son).
She gasped in astonishment and said "I'd never let you."
"That's what you're asking me to do with your other son," he told her.
She looked down momentarily, then walked out of the room and thought about it.

In the end, she had 7 kids altogether.

is that a GOOD story? i find it kinda creepy.

Kinda creepy, Ash? One wonders where the doctor took his courses in bedside manner, if he took any at all.

im feeling very sorry for the woman so pressed that she had to take her 4 year old in with her for an abortion consultation.

That, too. But like all such parables, the story only includes the parts that the teller needs to make his point. Nothing said about why the woman thought she wanted an abortion, for instance.

Sure it does. The story clearly states that she "thought about it" only after a man told her that being pregnant means there's a BABY in there! She hadn't "thought about it" before then, of course, because she was simply being a selfish, silly, stupid woman and was trying to get an abortion for no good reason.

The moral of the story is that women are too stupid to know what abortion is, which is why we need nice male doctors to helpfully explain it to us. Even women who have been pregnant, given birth, and have a born child can't possibly understand pregnancy as well as a nice man who will helpfully encourage her to think about her choices. Tee hee! Our silly lady-brains!

I'm astonished the guy who knocked her up with that first kid didn't tell her where babies come from, since it was HIS CHILD and she might have aborted it without give him HIS SAY.

[Muravyets]

1) No but the fact that you want to eat is not sufficient proof that you need food. The body functioning and the examples of starvation are proof of that. I have never heard of someone die from lack of fuck,

Bullshit, and ignoring the points that have already been made (and not just by me) in order to post said bullshit.

2) Yes indeed , and it will follow with the toothbrush on a string act ...

Thank you for acknowledging the childishness of your performance here.

3) He has just stated an rather irrelevant fact, not explained. you have low standards for proof when it concerns something you agree with

And now you don't even know who you're talking about or what they were saying. I think I'm ready to forget you exist now.

1) Prove to me that people need fucking to survive.
3) I know who - the guy who just mentioned that greater good idea was behind the worst atrocities in history (meaning hitler) to who i responded that it is responsible for a load of utterly good ones as well - without, neither me or you would likely know how to read eg.)

I suppose a person could read aloud to you from the hundreds of hard science studies that have been done since Kinsey about both the psychology and the physiology of sex, but that would require talking to you, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

And I suppose someone could teach you the health benefits of sex by having sex with you, but that would require being close enough to touch you and would be even worse.

Either way, it would be a waste of effort because, no matter how you demand answers, you pay no attention to them when they are given. So I'll just rest assured that the posters in this thread who are aware of reality know that in this instance, I'm right and you're wrong.

[Muravyets]

I'm not sure what the ongoing conversation has to do with the thread topic, but it is making me laugh.

that had no substainsive use or proof and made no sense at all. So I decided to bludgeon him with it.

You're absolutely right. Having something attached to you that affects your health automatically makes it a part of your body, even if said object functions as a separate (albeit parasitic) organism and has to trick your immune system into letting it stay there. It's a semantic argument with no actual bearing on the debate at hand, of course, so why not go with it?

Idiots annoy me. I've got a theory I'm experimenting with too...the theory is that if you verbally bludgeon a moron long enough, it will go away.

I tried that experiment for years. It doesn't work. In fact, the thicker the head, the less responsive to bludgeoning. Finally, I gave up trying to drive them away. Now I just bludgeon them for sport. It's better than fishing with dynamite because I tend to feel sorry for the fish.

[Muravyets]

Then, do so. It is the same with state medicine - you are free not to go to emergency and stitch that gaping slice on your arm yourself, and it makes sense if the injury would prove you of a crime, but generally it is not the best choice.
If you would really rather do what you say instead of appearing in front of such commission , then you are just stubborn.

Poor, silly, stubborn Bottle. How could she wish to be treated as an actual adult human being instead of a creature who needs a panel to tell her how to live her life? That's just stubborn!

Thank heavens nobody's given me the right to vote, else I might exercise said right and help ensure that my government never implements panels full of panty-sniffing biology-failing sociopaths who get off on denying medical care to women.

It is, however, nice to see that they've temporarily abandoned the argument that women get abortions for fun. I'm sure they'll go back to that particular lie in a few more pages, but it's nice to have a break while they, instead, call me stupid.

No, the panel would be of doctors, and sociologists that would examine whether the abortion is best for society and for you. Why would any of them be a biology fail i have no idea, and panty-sniffing is a deviation called fetishism - such people belong to psychiatry.
As for the rest , luckily you are not the only person with vote.

Luckily you and your kind are the minority.

[Muravyets]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

It is the job of the state to direct and help him broadly, but also to cut his ability to harm others.

I disagree that it is the job of the state to direct him in any way other than keeping him from harming others. A state that does so has become overbearing, and should be overturned.

Unlike some ,most people are not so arrogant as to think an individual always knows better than society does

Some of us realize that "lots of people say so" doesn't make a given decision right.

CS better hope that's so because very poll ever taken shows that the majority of people in the US and most other countries all say that people like CS are flat-out wrong, that they are anti-democratic, that they seek to violate basic human rights, that their desired policies are abusive and oppressive, and that women should have the right to choose how to control their own bodies and how to plan their pregnancies.

That sure is "lots of people say[ing] so".

[Muravyets]

An individual does not always know what is best for him and cannot provide.

Good thing we have perfect people like you to tell us then, right?

I'm sure he wouldn't have any objection if The State decided to force his wife to have an abortion because The Panel decided that was best.

I know that I would not want to see him in a position to raise or influence a child. If I were on a panel that is empowered to decide whether he becomes a father...

Of course, I would never serve on such a panel, because such panels are a disgusting and grossly offensive notion. I'm just saying, people like CS should be careful what they wish for while they're jacking off to their favorite power fantasies.