Abortion

[Fran]

Fran-"parasite on her body"??? That type of comment comes from the same people who think that all sex is rape. I'm having a difficult time trying to see how you can put starving diseased children who have been put in that situation through no fault of their own along with abortion. Are you saying that it is ok to have an abortion 1 hour before birth, but not ok to kill the baby 10 minutes after it's been born?-Just because the location has modified and it now breathes air?

I appreciate Objectivism because of its ethics of reason and love of life. Developing human life included. (other than rape, incest, or the mothers life where she has been grossly violated or she will die) if individuals cannot respect the dignity of potential life and the great person that that developing child may be someday, innocent and untouched by the evil in the world, than how can we be expected to respect those that are alive an breathing with all of their faults?`If you would say that a pregnent woman has a parasite, well what does that say about your respect for and honor of your fellow man?

I regret my comment about the foetus being a parasite. With hindsight I understand that it would offend and apologise for saying it. For clarity, you took my quote out of context, I was looking at it purely from a biological slant. I am not looking to upset people, so I take back what I said.

Blackhorse: "I'm having a difficult time trying to see how you can put starving diseased children who have been put in that situation through no fault of their own along with abortion."

If I take a reliable form of birth control in order to prevent the pregnancy, but still become pregnant, then I would argue that I have been put in a situation (pregnancy), through no fault of my own. The pregnancy was outside of my volitional control, therefore, why should I be denied the right to do with my body and my life as I see fit, by having an abortion?

How can you place value on the life of the foetus, yet not place value on MY LIFE. I need freedom and autonomy in order to fully enjoy my life and being forced to have a child against my will is against my right to freedom.

It is true the African child is in a situation through no fault of his or her own, and probably cannot do anything to help him or herself. Whereas if I become pregnant, I can do something about it and don't want to be denied that opportunity.

My point about the African child is this: you value the life of the foetus enough to want to save it, because it does not involve any sacrifice on your part. If you value human life, why are you not out in Africa saving the starving children (i.e. what's the difference between saving a starving child and saving a foetus)? I'm presuming that you are not helping the starving children because it would involve a sacrifice on your part, one which you are not prepared to make. This is perfectly acceptable. My point is that carrying a pregnancy to term would involve a sacrifice on my part, one which I am not prepared to make.

I do value human life, but I am pro-abortion for this reason: pregnancy can happen despite all my best attempts to prevent it. Abortion would be wrong if I volitionally chose when to release an ovum and no ovum was released unless and until I made this conscious decision. Then the pregnancy would be within my own control and thus I would be responsible for it happening.

Blackhorse, I am assuming you are a man. You can therefore never become pregnant. It is easy for you to condemn an act as immoral because pregnancy and all that this entails will never affect you.

[blackhorse]

Fran , I appreciate your clarification.

[bmacwilliam]

I do value human life, but I am pro-abortion for this reason: pregnancy can happen despite all my best attempts to prevent it. Abortion would be wrong if I volitionally chose when to release an ovum and no ovum was released unless and until I made this conscious decision. Then the pregnancy would be within my own control and thus I would be responsible for it happening.

Blackhorse, I am assuming you are a man. You can therefore never become pregnant. It is easy for you to condemn an act as immoral because pregnancy and all that this entails will never affect you.

Been a while since posting here - really busy but been lurking a bit. Decided to chime in on this issue though.

I am pro-choice, but Fran's ideas here are wrong and in some ways insulting to men.

"but I am pro-abortion for this reason: pregnancy can happen despite all my best attempts to prevent it."

Then your reason for being pro abortion is wrong. Best effort would mean no sex if pregnancy is unwanted. You MUST assume a non-zero risk if you are sexually active. This is a fact, not an opinion. I am not saying you should abstain, the point is you must accept responsibility for risk though.

"Then the pregnancy would be within my own control and thus I would be responsible for it happening."

Other than rape, you are ALWAYS 50% responsible. What's with the avoiding responsibility thing?

"It is easy for you to condemn an act as immoral because pregnancy and all that this entails will never affect you."

Wrong wrong wrong. This is convenient excuse to deny men reproductive rights. The fact is that up until conception men and women have equal rights, but afterwards men have none. Fathering a child is hardly something that "will never affect you".

Often the most vocal proponents of pro choice are the biggest complainers when men refuse to pay support for an unwanted pregnancy. Can't have it both ways.

If we are pro choice, then men must be given a choice too. Refusing to care/pay for an unwanted child is acceptable for a woman (abortion), it also must be acceptable for a man (walking away from an unwanted pregnancy)

Bob

Edited December 6, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Rich Engle]

I can't believe the way some men on here are writing. Sure seems like there's a blistering lack of real-life experience in this area (and, outside of the obvious, for that I am glad).

"Reproductive rights?" You want rights, don't fuck without a contract, then!

Like the real action even works that way in the first place. Daymnnn.

Men, on the whole, are pussies when compared to what women deal with body-wise. Total, goddamn pussies. Most men can't even handle the thought of a vasectomy. Try shitting out a bowling ball for additional perspective, boys. But none of that is really the point, other than me just saying most men don't have bragging rights in this area, because, once again, they are little Nancy-boys.

Go in a ghetto like where I work and ask the master impregnator/disappearing artists about reproductive rights. They'll say they definitely have them, yo.

The people that want to make this decision for others need to spend more time making decisions for themselves, or maybe consider some additional part-time.

[bmacwilliam]

I can't believe the way some men on here are writing. Sure seems like there's a blistering lack of real-life experience in this area (and, outside of the obvious, for that I am glad).

"Reproductive rights?" You want rights, don't fuck without a contract, then!

Like the real action even works that way in the first place. Daymnnn.

Men, on the whole, are pussies when compared to what women deal with body-wise. Total, goddamn pussies. Most men can't even handle the thought of a vasectomy. Try shitting out a bowling ball for additional perspective, boys. But none of that is really the point, other than me just saying most men don't have bragging rights in this area, because, once again, they are little Nancy-boys.

Go in a ghetto like where I work and ask the master impregnator/disappearing artists about reproductive rights. They'll say they definitely have them, yo.

The people that want to make this decision for others need to spend more time making decisions for themselves, or maybe consider some additional part-time.

Do a little background work before spouting foolishness.

"Men, on the whole, are pussies when compared to what women deal with body-wise. Total, goddamn pussies. Most men can't even handle the thought of a vasectomy. Try shitting out a bowling ball for additional perspective, boys. But none of that is really the point, other than me just saying most men don't have bragging rights in this area, because, once again, they are little Nancy-boys."

This is false. FYI, pain tolerance in men is significantly HIGHER, not lower.

"Reproductive rights?" You want rights, don't fuck without a contract, then! "

Goes both ways, BOTH ways...

Bob

[Rich Engle]

I'm just going to let the spewing thing go, Bob.

Example of manly behavior, if you want to look at numbers: go find out how bad men are at personal healthcare (i.e. scheduling Dr. appointments, preventative maintenance, etc.) vs. women.

And I stand by the vasectomy statement. The pussiness and maybe some kind of weird macho "got to protect the bloodline" type of things are rampant. So many fail to realize how this simple procedure has virtually zero impact on a man vs. things like tubal ligations on women. Nope, I'm staying pat: most men are pussies in this department.

All that negligence, and then the bravado some have to make decisions about women and their bodies. Rightio!

Do agree about both ways in a contract, for sure. That's why they call 'em contracts.

[blackhorse]

Rich, why don't you tell us how you really feel

[Rich Engle]

blackhorse:

If you've had enough wives and daughters, eventually one comes to an understanding.

Unless you're a pussy, or maybe a fundamentalist. Little help for those. B)

Edited December 7, 2006 by Rich Engle

[bmacwilliam]

I'm just going to let the spewing thing go, Bob.

Example of manly behavior, if you want to look at numbers: go find out how bad men are at personal healthcare (i.e. scheduling Dr. appointments, preventative maintenance, etc.) vs. women.

And I stand by the vasectomy statement. The pussiness and maybe some kind of weird macho "got to protect the bloodline" type of things are rampant. So many fail to realize how this simple procedure has virtually zero impact on a man vs. things like tubal ligations on women. Nope, I'm staying pat: most men are pussies in this department.

All that negligence, and then the bravado some have to make decisions about women and their bodies. Rightio!

Do agree about both ways in a contract, for sure. That's why they call 'em contracts.

Aversion to vasectomies is one thing, but men are not pussies. Assuming this is true as the basis of your argument when it's false is what I'm objecting to. Your argument is false AND offensive. That's why I "spew"

_____________________________

"Laboratory studies show a clear difference in pain tolerance levels between men and women. When healthy men and women are subjected to heat and other types of pain tests, women almost always report feeling discomfort first.

"It takes a lower temperature for a women to tell you that this feels painful," says Roger Fillingim, PhD, associate professor in the college of dentistry at the University of Florida, in Gainesville. "The laboratory studies show rather convincingly that women have a lower pain threshold and pain tolerance than men. That has been fairly consistently shown in the experimental studies that have been done."

_____________________________________

I am not advocating that men make decisions over women's bodies - quite the opposite. I am arguing that SINCE men have no claim over women's bodies, they MUST be allowed the right to disagree with the woman's choice to continue with the pregnancy and should not be held financially responsible if the child is unwanted by the man.

To put it another way. To argue pro choice for a woman, but in the same argument also promote anti choice for men is logically inconsistent at best and overtly offensively anti-male at worst.

Bob

Edited December 7, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Judith]

Often the most vocal proponents of pro choice are the biggest complainers when men refuse to pay support for an unwanted pregnancy. Can't have it both ways.

If we are pro choice, then men must be given a choice too. Refusing to care/pay for an unwanted child is acceptable for a woman (abortion), it also must be acceptable for a man (walking away from an unwanted pregnancy)

I agree completely. Since the woman has sole choice regarding whether to have an abortion or whether to have a child, a man should be able to elect whether to have fatherhood responsibilities or whether to limit his responsibility to half of the abortion costs. Should he elect to pay half the abortion costs and should the woman elect to have the baby, however, he should have absolutly no right whatsoever in the future to demand any paternity rights, such as visitation, etc.

Aversion to vasectomies is one thing, but men are not pussies. Assuming this is true as the basis of your argument when it's false is what I'm objecting to. Your argument is false AND offensive. That's why I "spew"

_____________________________

"Laboratory studies show a clear difference in pain tolerance levels between men and women. When healthy men and women are subjected to heat and other types of pain tests, women almost always report feeling discomfort first.

"It takes a lower temperature for a women to tell you that this feels painful," says Roger Fillingim, PhD, associate professor in the college of dentistry at the University of Florida, in Gainesville. "The laboratory studies show rather convincingly that women have a lower pain threshold and pain tolerance than men. That has been fairly consistently shown in the experimental studies that have been done."

_____________________________________

I am not advocating that men make decisions over women's bodies - quite the opposite. I am arguing that SINCE men have no claim over women's bodies, they MUST be allowed the right to disagree with the woman's choice to continue with the pregnancy and should not be held financially responsible if the child is unwanted by the man.

To put it another way. To argue pro choice for a woman, but in the same argument also promote anti choice for men is logically inconsistent at best and overtly offensively anti-male at worst.

There's a big difference between pain tolerance and willingness to tolerate pain. The tests don't speak to Rich's point, which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it. There's a saying that if men bore children, there'd be a lot of only children and abortion would be a sacrament.

Judith

[bmacwilliam]

There's a big difference between pain tolerance and willingness to tolerate pain. The tests don't speak to Rich's point, which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it. There's a saying that if men bore children, there'd be a lot of only children and abortion would be a sacrament.

Judith

What? This is what I mean. This is just wrong - absolute BS. If you have a hunch that men are pussies, prove it. Evidence please.

What about violent sports? Men play them much more than women. Men are MUCH more likely to put themselves in positions where great pain is likely by a HUGE margin.

Who takes more physical risks? Young men or young women? Do you know what the proportion of male to female spinal cord injury victims is? Ever actually think about evidence before spouting on about nonsense and being highly offensive?

I am really trying to understand the motivation for believing such nonsense. I guess women want to feel that's there's some physical element where they're superior to men. Well there is, but it's not pain. There's some evidence to suggest that women might have an advantage in ultimate endurance type activities like ultramarathons.

Bob

Edited December 7, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Judith]

There's a big difference between pain tolerance and willingness to tolerate pain. The tests don't speak to Rich's point, which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it. There's a saying that if men bore children, there'd be a lot of only children and abortion would be a sacrament.

Judith

What? This is what I mean. This is just wrong - absolute BS. If you have a hunch that men are pussies, prove it. Evidence please.

What about violent sports? Men play them much more than women. Men are MUCH more likely to put themselves in positions where great pain is likely by a HUGE margin.

Who takes more physical risks? Young men or young women? Do you know what the proportion of male to female spinal cord injury victims is? Ever actually think about evidence before spouting on about nonsense and being highly offensive?

Bob

I don't have proof -- only observations from daily life. And I'm not trying to be offensive -- I'm just entering into the discussion.

As for violent sports and risk-taking, men don't EXPECT to be hurt when they undertake these activities. Especially young men believe, "It won't happen to me." There's also the factor of peer pressure; looking wussy is far more intimidating than the risk itself.

In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought. Especially in the area of what one is willing to do for cosmetic improvement: how many men would be willing to have a hot wax bikini line treatment, or even tweeze their eyebrows? Women do it on a regular basis.

Judith

[bmacwilliam]

There's a big difference between pain tolerance and willingness to tolerate pain. The tests don't speak to Rich's point, which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it. There's a saying that if men bore children, there'd be a lot of only children and abortion would be a sacrament.

Judith

What? This is what I mean. This is just wrong - absolute BS. If you have a hunch that men are pussies, prove it. Evidence please.

What about violent sports? Men play them much more than women. Men are MUCH more likely to put themselves in positions where great pain is likely by a HUGE margin.

Who takes more physical risks? Young men or young women? Do you know what the proportion of male to female spinal cord injury victims is? Ever actually think about evidence before spouting on about nonsense and being highly offensive?

Bob

I don't have proof -- only observations from daily life. And I'm not trying to be offensive -- I'm just entering into the discussion.

As for violent sports and risk-taking, men don't EXPECT to be hurt when they undertake these activities. Especially young men believe, "It won't happen to me." There's also the factor of peer pressure; looking wussy is far more intimidating than the risk itself.

In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought. Especially in the area of what one is willing to do for cosmetic improvement: how many men would be willing to have a hot wax bikini line treatment, or even tweeze their eyebrows? Women do it on a regular basis.

Judith

Ok Judith, but look at what's happening. We have a gender-based maligning of men - calling them wimpy. It's offensive. Think about it the other way round. And in fact, the opposite is true, men are not wimpy.

"In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought."

I could argue that seeking a Doctor is about relieving pain. My hunch is the fact that more men avoid Doctors is more about avoiding admission of frailty, and that men don't seek Doctors is actually evidence that they are MORE willing to live with pain.

Bob

[Judith]

Ok Judith, but look at what's happening. We have a gender-based maligning of men - calling them wimpy. It's offensive. Think about it the other way round. And in fact, the opposite is true, men are not wimpy.

"In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought."

I could argue that seeking a Doctor is about relieving pain. My hunch is the fact that more men avoid Doctors is more about avoiding admission of frailty, and that men don't seek Doctors is actually evidence that they are MORE willing to live with pain.

*I* never used the word "wimpy" to describe men, or any other perjorative term. I'm just interested in what I perceive to be actual differences here; I'm not interested in insulting anybody. Men are very courageous when it comes to entering battle. I respect men immensely. I certainly like having men around when it comes to policemen, firefighters, soldiers, etc. (not to imply for a moment that women can't make contributions in these fields). Men and women have different kinds of ferocity, and male ferocity is a formidable thing to behold when fighting an enemy or overcoming an adverse force of nature; I stand in awe of it.

The subject at hand is common, everyday pain or injuries and willingness to undergo certain pain. You may be partially right about men not wanting to go to doctors because of not wanting to admit frailty; it would certainly fit in with my experience of the men I've known. Nonetheless, I've also witnessed the other phenomena I mentioned, and added together, I think my point holds as well. I've known men to be able to face war, but run like little girls from the prospect of having a splinter removed with a needle. Go figure.

Judith

[bmacwilliam]

*I* never used the word "wimpy" to describe men, or any other perjorative term. I'm just interested in what I perceive to be actual differences here; I'm not interested in insulting anybody. Men are very courageous when it comes to entering battle. I respect men immensely. I certainly like having men around when it comes to policemen, firefighters, soldiers, etc. (not to imply for a moment that women can't make contributions in these fields). Men and women have different kinds of ferocity, and male ferocity is a formidable thing to behold when fighting an enemy or overcoming an adverse force of nature; I stand in awe of it.

The subject at hand is common, everyday pain or injuries and willingness to undergo certain pain. You may be partially right about men not wanting to go to doctors because of not wanting to admit frailty; it would certainly fit in with my experience of the men I've known. Nonetheless, I've also witnessed the other phenomena I mentioned, and added together, I think my point holds as well. I've known men to be able to face war, but run like little girls from the prospect of having a splinter removed with a needle. Go figure.

Judith

The fact that some men are wimpy does not lead to the conclusion you originally asserted:

"which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it."

Evidence suggests the exact opposite. Anecdotal doesn't cut it, and your point does not hold well.

At least we agree on the main point about the abortion issue, and I find your comments on that very reasonable.

Bob

[Judith]

At least we agree on the main point about the abortion issue, and I find your comments on that very reasonable.

Yes, we do. The law favors women right now in many ways, as a backlash against the unfairness women faced for so long. That isn't fair to the men living right now; they aren't responsible for the sins of their ancestors. I think it may take a number of years for the law to even out to some reasonable degree of equity and rationality (assuming we all aren't living under sharia law in the future).

The fact that some men are wimpy does not lead to the conclusion you originally asserted:

"which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it."

Evidence suggests the exact opposite. Anecdotal doesn't cut it, and your point does not hold well.

I don't know that there ARE any studies relevant to my point, and I'm still not convinced that we aren't really talking about two different things, namely willingness to assume RISK of severe pain and even death, versus willingness to take on KNOWN pain, even minimal to moderate pain.

And I also can't help wondering if my anecdotal evidence is different from yours because I'm a woman and you're a man. Men show different sides of themselves to women and to other men. My men friends will tell me things and allow me to see things in themselves that they would NEVER allow when we're in the presence of other men. The kinds of episodes I described earlier -- unwillingness to go to the doctor, unwillingness to have iodine put on a cut, unwillingness to have a splinter removed with a needle -- are the kinds of things a man would exhibit to the woman in his life, not to his buddies.

Judith

[blackhorse]

I for one, am not a pussy. Pain tolerance is very subjective. Every individual, men and women alike, therefore cannot be judged collectively on this matter, but only on an individual basis.

[bmacwilliam]

I for one, am not a pussy. Pain tolerance is very subjective. Every individual, men and women alike, therefore cannot be judged collectively on this matter, but only on an individual basis.

Right. Look at the following sexist remarks...

_____________

Women, on the whole, are pussies when compared to what men deal with body-wise. Total, goddamn pussies. Most women can't even handle a little punch in the face. Try playing hockey girls. But none of that is really the point, other than me just saying most women are little wimp-shit whiners.

There's a saying that if women were allowed to vote, we'd all be living in identical pink houses and it'd be against the law to hurt someone's feelings.

_____________

Just changing a little bit and flipping the genders around on comments made by others here regarding men. It's not acceptable, it's offensive.

Bob

[Danneskjold]

What'd he just say? Did he call the girls on the forum sexist or the guys? Who said that second one?

[Judith]

What'd he just say? Did he call the girls on the forum sexist or the guys? Who said that second one?

*smile* He paraphrased Rick's comment (first) and my comment (second) changing the genders and the circumstances. That was my statement about only children and abortion being a sacrament. So he's not accusing people in general of making sexist comments, just Rick and me, as far as I can tell.

I don't intend to be sexist in a derogatory way, although I do believe that there are differences between men and women; I'm just pointing out some observations I've made. Other women have made similar observations. As I've said, men show different sides of themselves to other men and to women.

I suppose how much pain you're willing to endure also has a lot to do with how much something matters to you; women think it's silly to get beat up playing a game for possession of an oval-shaped object made of pigskin, and men think it's silly to have the hairs on one's bikini line pulled out by hot wax.

And one statement I definitely stand by is that peer pressure will cause men to take incredible risks and endure immense pain rather than be thought wussy by their buddies, whereas women wouldn't be in that situation because that kind of stoicism isn't considered a virtue among women.

Judith

PS: *I* think it's both sexist and demeaning to use the word "pussy" to refer to a weak man.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Judith

[Kat]

Yeah, that word makes me cringe too and I certainly don't like that kind of crude language here. Let's steer the discussion back to politics and ethics.

I know abortion is a very controversial issue. I don't want the right taken away, but on the other hand, as a mother, I consider a fetus a developing person. An independent fully developed person's rights take precedence over the one who is dependent upon them for reaching a developmental stage where they can live outside the mother's body. It is more than a pain tolerance issue. It is a huge responsibility, a lifestyle issue, and lets not forget the physical issue of pregnancy. Again, pregnancy is hell. No one should be forced to bear children against their wishes, when we have the technology to prevent it. It is a sacrifice to bring children into this world.

Jeff, why do you dismiss the birth control is not 100% argument outright?

Here is some is comic relief from Monty Python -

Kat

[bmacwilliam]

"PS: *I* think it's both sexist and demeaning to use the word "pussy" to refer to a weak man."

Agreed.

Earlier quotes...

"but run like little girls from the prospect of having a splinter removed with a needle

In contrast, I see a lot of men unwilling to go to the doctor, undergo needed but unpleasant tests, pop a pimple, put peroxide or iodine on a cut, etc. when in the same situation women simply do it without a thought.

which is that most men simply aren't WILLING to endure pain in situations where women are willing to endure it. There's a saying that if men bore children, there'd be a lot of only children and abortion would be a sacrament."

Then you write:

"I don't intend to be sexist in a derogatory way"

Evidence doesn't support this statement. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.

Bob

[Rich Engle]

Bob (and possibly friends) think I am too harsh, linguistically speaking, quiche-eaters speaking (For the record, I love quiche):

PS: *I* think it's both sexist and demeaning to use the word "pussy" to refer to a weak man."

Yup. Absolutely. If I could only think of worse ways to do more than being sexist and demeaning. But this will do for now.

The mere reaction speaks to the problem. As far as the clever reversal substituting "women" for "men," heavens...I was expecting a little more than that.

rde

Suprised no one went after "Nancy-Boys."

Edited December 8, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is interesting to me in discussions where flames start is that next year, the important issues, like defining the rights of the conceived but unborn and defining the roles adults and society play, will still be here and still be unresolved.

Who flamed who and so forth will be long forgotten, even as the posts remain.

All this is a mirror that reflects a value choice, I guess.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

True that, MSK.

As far as I'm concerned, all this is about hitting the soft spot inside a few guys that are of the impression that they have a clue or a right (outside of contracts, of course) to tell women how to take care of their bodies.

I didn't flame anyone. I indicted an entire, large section of the male race.

It reminds me, oddly, of the thread about Biddle and Islam.

rde

Chickenhawks and Chicken-choking have a lot in common, now that I look at it...