Text 5998, 215 rader
Skriven 2008-01-19 16:54:15 av Daniel Prather (1159.pol_inc)
Kommentar till en text av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Pro-Choice
==================
Re: Pro-Choice
By: TIM RICHARDSON to DANIEL PRATHER on Sat Jan 19 2008 07:34 am
> Not each and every sexual act a woman engages in is `rape'. Right at the
> very beginning, a woman has a choice: The choices are; Yes.....or No! She
> chose Yes!
In some cases. Not in all.
> She went into the act knowing full well that without proper precautions and
> responsible measures to prevent it....a pregnancy could result from what
> she was doing.
>
> She was responsible enough to make the decision to engage in sexual
> activity she `knew' could result in a pregnancy.
So, if you contract a sexually transmitted disease, you shouldn't be allowed
any sort of treatment (whether it's curable or incurable) because you "knew the
consequences"? At which point does this logic break down? I mean, if you
drive a car, should you waive any and all treatment if you're involved in an
accident, because you knew that you could end up in one?
> There are over 48 million abortions recorded since 1973. So.....looking at
> your paragraph above, and extrapolating it out over the years since 1973 to
> the present day, one has to wonder why a birth control industry even exists
> since obviously (using your position) it doesn't work!
>
> (Even the Edsel and the Delorean saw the futility of continuing with
> failure!)
>
> Getting back to the real world..........birth control really `does' work.
> And the only ones who know for absolute certainty whether or not a birth
> control method was used and used properly...are the two individuals who
> engaged in the sex act that resulted in a pregnancy.
>
> Birth control methods fail many times because the people trying to use them
> aren't using them properly. More often than not....the method would work
> `if' it were used at all. In many cases the claim that a birth control
> device was used but failed isn't always necessarily the truth. People `do'
> lie about sex, as we have seen many times in the news.
I didn't say that birth control didn't work. I said that it wasn't 100%, and
there's always the possibility that it fails for a number of reasons (defect,
one's own chemistry). I'm not of the mind that when something fails, people
are stuck with whatever results with no recourse.
> Oh yeah! Its all the fault of those vindictive men! Those terrible
> vindictive men!
>
> Anything but make the mother to be responsible for her own carelessness.
Do a little research on women who couldn't take birth control and trusted their
partners. I mean, you are fucking them. Sometimes the trust gets misplaced,
the partner does something bad (like poking holes in condoms), and the woman
end up pregnant against her wishes. Of course, the man doesn't have to carry
the child, doesn't have to undergo birth or abortion procedures, he basically
doesn't have to do anything except pay money in the future. But oh, if that
woman hadn't been so stupid as to trust someone, she wouldn't have had any
problems! You're not realistic.
> I set up nothing. Any more than I was the one who set up the scenario of an
> armed robber committing the robbery that sent them to prison.
>
> The woman has all the rights in the world over her own body. Nobody is
> denying her that, least of all me.
>
> But along with rights......comes responsibility. If you get a license to
> carry a gun.......you have the responsibility to see that you do so safely
> and without endangering others.
>
> If you drive a car......you have the responsibility to do so without
> endangering other people.
>
> Rights come with responsibilities built into them. And so far....I haven't
> even *mentioned* the word "morally". *You* brought that up. Not me.
Yet none of those cases involves decisions on control over your own, physical
body.
> Without due process of law.......people don't have the right to just willy
> nilly make a decision that costs the life of another person.
Please, explain to me where two entities can exist within the same body, where
one's rights supercede the others, and there's no conflict?
> You have taken this argument over a pretty wide spectrum:
>
> You've tried to set aside the woman's responsibilities that come along with
> her right of control over her body.
Her reponsibilities are to deal with her own body. Her responsibilities over
her own body are her own, and she owes nothing to anyone else.
> You've tried to shun it all off on those terrible birth control
> manufacturers for defective products.
I said no such thing. I said birth control, all forms, was not 100% effective.
Not even sterilization is always 100% effective. I'm pointing out the fact
that you can do everything right, and STILL end up pregnant.
> You've tried to push the `rape' scenario.
Because it's a valid scenario. It happens far, far, far too often. There's
also incest combined with rape.
> You've tried to excuse it as something the woman shouldn't have to endure.
Because she shouldn't. If you're sick, you aren't left to be sick simply
because you were stupid enough to contract something. You deal with it
sufficiently to make yourself happy, and move on with your life. In your
world, apparently, people aren't allowed to make decisions about their lives,
and shouldn't ever be allowed to seek treatment for things that may have
resulted from their actions.
> You've even pushed the blame all onto those terrible, vindictive men!
> (Disgusting creatures!)
No, I said that if this affected men, it would be a non-issue. You can look at
the wide range of mens issues to see how they're handled differently from
womens issues (birth control, viagra, etc.) just to see how they're
prioritized. Women are the afterthought, and always have been. But if you
DARED to violate a man's control over his body, this would be solved in a heart
beat.
> And now you come up with the old tried and true method of *when is it a
> baby? ....when is it alive?*. That argument plays well at a lesbian
> convention.
Since you have the answer, please, enlighten me. At which point does it become
an entity thats rights supercede the rights of the mother?
> In the real world.......when a man and woman (two humans of opposite sex)
> engage in sexual activity, and the woman becomes pregnant, the result is
> going to be another human being. There's no way to change that. Its a
> biological fact.
Sure, approximately 9 months later. During that time, a number of things can
happen. There's abortion, miscarriages, still-born babies, or a number of
other things, in addition to the delivery of a healthy child.
> Nobody is trying to `put everything on the shoulders of the mother', here,
> except `you'. I'm not the one who brought that in.....you did.
>
> I pointed out that the woman has responsibilities in the act that resulted
> in a pregnancy.....and abortion should *not* be a method of birth control.
> A birth control method used properly and responsibly, makes an abortion
> unnecessary.
Yes, and by doing this, you put it all on the shoulders of the mother. If the
mother wasn't smart enough to figure out that her chosen birth control
method(s) might fail, well, she should suffer the consequences. Fuck that.
> That too bad. Did you think everybody in the whole country was going to
> fall in line with the idea that abortion was a real neat (although a bit
> expensive) birth control method?
Not at all. I also don't think it's a really neat birth control method. I'm
not pro-abortion. I'm pro-womens-rights, and I don't think anyone has the
right to tell anyone else what they can and can't do with their own bodies (and
everything inside them).
> Unfortunately for you..........that power isn't within your grasp. However,
> some people who thought just like you do tried that road back in the late
> thirties and early forties of last century. It didn't turn out too well, as
> most of them ended up being tried and executed for their ....uh.....little
> experiments of controlling who does and does `not' get to reproduce (so to
> speak).
But, according to your logic, it's entirely justified to do it, if I feel that
you're making "bad" decisions. I should be able to force you to face whatever
consequences I'd like to dream up, and there shouldn't be anything you can do
about it because somebody other than you apparently knows what's best for your
body.
> I'm in my sixties, old enough to be retired and drawing Social Security,
> although I'm not, and I don't.
Wow, so relevant to the discussion.
> Now.........you have taken this conversation into the realm of stupidity.
It went there with your first post.
> We were talking about responsibilities and rights exercised in a way that
> doesn't cost the life of another person.....and now you've degenerated the
> conversation into you wanting to deny me the right to reproduce....and
> having my balls cut off.
Seems it's a bit late for that, since you have had children, but oh well.
Hopefully they don't fall in line with their father's backwards thinking and
revocation of women's rights to control their bodies simply because something
inside them may or may not be alive at some arbitrary point in time.
> So.......out the window went intelligent exchange of opinion.
> This conversation is now ended.
Let me detail how this went.
* Women must always face the consequences of their actions, with no recourse
whatsoever.
* Their situation or circumstances, especially those leading to their
unintended pregnancy, are also of no importance.
* A woman's right to control her own body stops the moment she's pregnant,
even if we're looking at nothing more than a fertilized egg.
* Men, on the other hand, who do not have to worry about being pregnant,
endure pregnancy, or make any of these decisions whatsoever, can freely dictate
the rights women are not allowed to have, without having to endure the
consequences of any such situation themselves.
Yeah, it did go pretty stupid pretty fast. Again, your first post on the
subject took it there.
-- Daniel
--- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD
* Origin: :: The Realm of Dreams :: bbs.mysticone.com (1:112/10)
|