How much jail time for women who've had abortions?

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

But your evidence takes a belief that it is factual.

You can tell me that your thermometer tells you it's 33 degrees celcius outside. It takes belief that the thermometer is right even though it is a tool of science. It takes belief that we even have a true understanding of heat and science to think that even a properly calibrated thermometer is the way to measure temperature. All your evidence takes just as much belief as any of my beliefs. I'm just not afraid to acknowledge them as beliefs. I don't try to quell any fears I may have by making our science to be omnipotent.

Relatively speaking, science is the truth.

I understand where you are coming from, and I think it's an emotionally attractive view of reality, but it's the least credible.

catefrances

surferdude wrote:

I think this is a full of shit attitude, especially if you are in favor of women receiving child support.

Fine, you control your body. No one can force you to carry a baby to term. Let's accord men this same equality. No one can control their body. Men make money by performing an activity (i.e. using their body), taking money from a man n the form of child support is forcing him to use his body in a manner he may not wish.

Women are offered a legal ability to walk away from a pregnancy, so should every father.

too bad. it's my body, no one else's. men are so busy screwing the world with their power plays and war games that they can't fathom a situation where they lack control. well boohoo. you don't want to procreate then don't fuck. it's as simple as that. and if you do then be aware that the result is pregnancy, wanted and unwanted.

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

Relatively speaking, science is the truth.

Deterministically speaking the truth is the truth. Science is just what people make it.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

too bad. it's my body, no one else's. men are so busy screwing the world with their power plays and war games that they can't fathom a situation where they lack control. well boohoo. you don't want to procreate then don't fuck. it's as simple as that. and if you do then be aware that the result is pregnancy, wanted and unwanted.

That sounds like a pro-life statement.

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

Deterministically speaking the truth is the truth. Science is just what people make it.

Not exactly. Any scientific literature I've read makes points for and against the theories within it. Science is far more objective and collaberative than any other train of thought. Its no contest.

surferdude

catefrances wrote:

men are so busy screwing the world with their power plays and war games that they can't fathom a situation where they lack control. well boohoo.

Don't worry about your body honey. With this attitude towards men I seriously can't see you having a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted.

catefrances

surferdude wrote:

Don't worry about your body honey. With this attitude towards men I seriously can't see you having a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted.

LMAO!! i am a parent.

btw, i can use that anger for good as well as evil.

surferdude

catefrances wrote:

LMAO!! i am a parent.

I'm glad. Of course you could have made me feel like a real shmuck and gone into tears and called me a bastard because you've been trying to have kids for years but can't.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

That sounds like a pro-life statement.

it's a common sense statement ryan. it's also a choice thing. sex can equal offspring. there's a chance. do you take that chance, hoping nothing happens but you getting off? but when it comes to issues about one's own body, i'm pro-me.

my body's nobody's body but mine. i believe the saying goes.

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

Science is far more objective and collaberative than any other train of thought.

This statement has absolutely nothing to do with science being able to come even remotely close to truth. Realistically science is a guess. In fact it proves over and over again it is everything but the truth.

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

This statement has absolutely nothing to do with science being able to come even remotely close to truth. Realistically science is a guess. In fact it proves over and over again it is everything but the truth.

It sounds like you gave up on science. It comes pretty damn close if you put your mind to it.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

it's a common sense statement ryan. it's also a choice thing. sex can equal offspring. there's a chance. do you take that chance, hoping nothing happens but you getting off? but when it comes to issues about one's own body, i'm pro-me.

my body's nobody's body but mine. i believe the saying goes.

So...

A) Woman has sex with man, gets pregnant and is entitled to an abortion
Man has sex with woman, woman gets pregnant and is awarded no choices about the fate of the fetus or his financial stability

Does that about sum it up?

The woman chooses what to do with her body after the sex, but the man's fate is totally dependent on the woman's freedom at that point? The statemtent you made could easily apply to women "You chose to have sex and get pregnant, now you must have the child." or the freedom of one's own body could be applied to the man "I did not choose to impregnate her, only to have sex, I did not choose the fate of the fetus either."

Don't get me wrong, I see the pro-choice arguments as solid and I am not against abortion. I just think you have a bit of a double-standard going on there.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

So...

A) Woman has sex with man, gets pregnant and is entitled to an abortion
Man has sex with woman, woman gets pregnant and is awarded no choices about the fate of the fetus or his financial stability

Does that about sum it up?

The woman chooses what to do with her body after the sex, but the man's fate is totally dependent on the woman's freedom at that point? The statemtent you made could easily apply to women "You chose to have sex and get pregnant, now you must have the child." or the freedom of one's own body could be applied to the man "I did not choose to impregnate her, only to have sex, I did not choose the fate of the fetus either."

Don't get me wrong, I see the pro-choice arguments as solid and I am not against abortion. I just think you have a bit of a double-standard going on there.

there's no double standard. it's my body. but just the same as men can choose to have sex or not, so too can women make this decision. however, women in the great scheme of things are in the driver's seat with this one. but without the petrol she ain't going anywhere.

i also think that guys are not quite getting what it's like to know there's a life growing inside you. relying on you for its very existence. taking from your body what it needs to survive. it's a hell of a thing to be pregnant and you seriously have no idea if you've never been pregnant. i'm not trying to polarise men and women, it's just fact. sure men can empathise to an extent. it's a scary thing. it's a joyous thing. it takes all your energy to deal and i mean physically, emotionally and psychologically. for the majority of woman it is not a decision to be made casually.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

there's no double standard. it's my body. but just the same as men can choose to have sex or not, so too can women make this decision. however, women in the great scheme of things are in the driver's seat with this one. but without the petrol she ain't going anywhere.

i also think that guys are not quite getting what it's like to know there's a life growing inside you. relying on you for its very existence. taking from your body what it needs to survive. it's a hell of a thing to be pregnant and you seriously have no idea if you've never been pregnant. i'm not trying to polarise men and women, it's just fact. sure men can empathise to an extent. it's a scary thing. it's a joyous thing. it takes all your energy to deal and i mean physically, emotionally and psychologically. for the majority of woman it is not a decision to be made casually.

I got that, but you are saying that if a man risks pregnancy by having sex with a woman, then they should just deal with the consequences of the woman's decisions thereafter, whereas the woman can make the choice to abort and absolve herself and the male of responsibility, but if she chooses to keep it, then the man must... what? pay support? how is this not a double-standard?

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

or the freedom of one's own body could be applied to the man "I did not choose to impregnate her, only to have sex,...

the function of sex is to procreate. we all know that. it's nature.
you shoot your seed inside a woman, the chance of a pregnancy is always a reality. that's a hell of a risk to take, don't you think?

surferdude

catefrances wrote:

the function of sex is to procreate. we all know that. it's nature.

maybe you just have had the wrong partner(s). The function of sex is to have a good, good time for two or more people.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

the function of sex is to procreate. we all know that. it's nature.
you shoot your seed inside a woman, the chance of a pregnancy is always a reality. that's a hell of a risk to take, don't you think?

Exactly, likewise, if you accept someone else's seed then you are taking the same chance. And unless you accept the same level of choice as you are affording them, then it's a double-standard based on the same exact act.

On one note you say "It's my body, I chose to have sex and I can choose to abort" on the other you say "It's your body, you chose to have sex and you have no choice". The act is the same whether the participant is male or female, but you want the consequences to be different. Biologically the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are stronger for the woman, but you are trying to reverse this by giving the woman the choice of abortion to avoid paying/raising the child, but you want to deprive men of walking away, and bind them to the decision made by the woman.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

I got that, but you are saying that if a man risks pregnancy by having sex with a woman, then they should just deal with the consequences of the woman's decisions thereafter, whereas the woman can make the choice to abort and absolve herself and the male of responsibility, but if she chooses to keep it, then the man must... what? pay support? how is this not a double-standard?

men can just walk away for all i care. i'm taking responsibility for MY decisions, no one else's. quite frankly i think what women need to do is take responsibilty for the lives they are responsible for creating. yes, i know it takes two to make a baby, but honestly we know what men are like, how can it be a surprise when they say you're on your own sister. how can it be a revelation when they balk at paying maintainance for a child? men and women are not the same. no matter how much we try and fool ourselves.
personally it makes me laugh that the problem we are seeing here is one that involves money. it seems to me to be a reflection of what our society values most in this life. you want to screw(metaphorically) with a guy then go after his money. there seems to be nothing worse that to garnish someone's wages for something we(women) think should be a given. why wouldn't a man want to contribute to the well being of his child? as i said before men and women are just different.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

men can just walk away for all i care. i'm taking responsibility for MY decisions, no one else's. quite frankly i think what women need to do is take responsibilty for the lives they are responsible for creating. yes, i know it takes two to make a baby, but honestly we know what men are like, how can it be a surprise when they say you're on your own sister. how can it be a revelation when they balk at paying maintainance for a child? men and women are not the same. no matter how much we try and fool ourselves.
personally it makes me laugh that the problem we are seeing here is one that involves money. it seems to me to be a reflection of what our society values most in this life. you want to screw(metaphorically) with a guy then go after his money. there seems to be nothing worse that to garnish someone's wages for something we(women) think should be a given. why wouldn't a man want to contribute to the well being of his child? as i said before men and women are just different.

Hey, if you are pro-life, then your pro-support-payment stance makes a lot of sense. But if you advocate pro-choice, then how would it make sense?

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Exactly, likewise, if you accept someone else's seed then you are taking the same chance. And unless you accept the same level of choice as you are affording them, then it's a double-standard based on the same exact act.

On one note you say "It's my body, I chose to have sex and I can choose to abort" on the other you say "It's your body, you chose to have sex and you have no choice". The act is the same whether the participant is male or female, but you want the consequences to be different. Biologically the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are stronger for the woman, but you are trying to reverse this by giving the woman the choice of abortion to avoid paying/raising the child, but you want to deprive men of walking away, and bind them to the decision made by the woman.

you(men) do choose to have sex. that's your choice.

and yes the consequences are different cause the circumstances are different. you know if men could become pregnant i'd still be standing by the same argument.