RE: Women's Rights!

RE: Women's Rights! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:46:32 PM)
Isn't it irresponsible not to be able to afford a baby but then have sex knowing you might end up with one? I'm trying to understand your position because the criteria you are setting for responsible sex seems to only consider the aspects that you care about. I mean I care that children don't grow up in poverty and that they have parents that actually want them, rather than secretly resent them. I'll tell you where the argument goes: you can only have sex for fun if you are very rich. Having sex for fun will become a pursuit of the wealthy. No poor person will have sex knowing they'll be forced to suffer the financial burden of children. I think people should be able to have sex for whatever reason they like and nobody by extension should be assessing their means to do so.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U quote: Who said it was about losing a job? You really enjoy making your assumptions don't you...[8\|] I asked... quote: as in? losing your job? yes FOLLOWED BY your ramble about work and guarantee about it etc quote: No occupation or any of which goes on (the tangible) is a guarentee. Therefore you choice to abort because of financial reasons is your choice. But, don't go through life expecting that tomorrow the economy will always be 'prosperous and appropriate' for your life and that IT has to revolve around you. which then does not sound much like a question anymore and more like a judgement as that sounds your explanation for it... quite frankly I never cared much about money. People who know me know that money doesn't have much of a meaning to me. Yes you need to pay your bills, but so what? I couldn't care less about money itself. However, reasons for it are simply far more complex then to just put it down a la lost the job or not money or whatever...that certainly would have never been the reason for me to make such a decision. But it shows well on what a shallow level some people think such decisions would be done.

ShaharThorne -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:55:12 PM)
To throw another wrench into the works... Why are the schools preaching absentience(?) only have a higher rate of pregnancies and HIV? Why are these schools not willing to offer choices to their students?

Elisabella -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:57:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I guess I missed the part in the last 32 pages or so where your point of view changed. Did you go on about how abortions were elective surgery and shouldn't be covered? By a healthcare bill, yes, because I feel that many people are treating public healthcare as something that should be the best, most comprehensive plan there is, when in actually it's usually a bare bones safety net that covers things that are medically necessary, not things that are socially necessary. I said quite a few times that I have no problem with government funding/assistance for abortions in a social welfare bill, or offering funding to clinics in exchange for abiding by an extreme sliding scale.

Elisabella -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne Why are the schools preaching absentience(?) only have a higher rate of pregnancies and HIV? Why are these schools not willing to offer choices to their students? I think the problem lies less with school sex-ed classes and more with parents who expect schools to teach their children non-academic subjects and don't see that it's their own job to educate their children about sex.

came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 7:59:10 PM)
quote: Isn't it irresponsible not to be able to afford a baby but then have sex knowing you might end up with one? I'm trying to understand your position because the criteria you are setting for responsible sex seems to only consider the aspects that you care about. I mean I care that children don't grow up in poverty and that they have parents that actually want them, rather than secretly resent them. It depends on the person. Some think that feeding a child is enough and a few clothes on their back...some others might feel that unless they had college paid for before birth, they wouldn't feel secure. Your other issues about 'resentment' has no basis as far as rights of the unborn, to me. That, if is the case, is a reason why people who may be less inclined to accept the responsibility of loving and caring for a child and would resent it, should think of that before they put a cock in/or took one in. quote: However, reasons for it are simply far more complex then to just put it down a la lost the job or not money or whatever...that certainly would have never been the reason for me to make such a decision. Then leave the world in suspence or to guess if that is the case. Doesn't matter to me.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 8:05:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Your other issues about 'resentment' has no basis as far as rights of the unborn, to me. That, if is the case, is a reason why people who may be less inclined to accept the responsibility of loving and caring for a child and would resent it, should think of that before they put a cock in/or took one in. So you care for the unborn child so much you want to put it through the experience of having parents that resent it? People won’t be nice parents just because you want them to be. We should look into the abuse angle because resentment often leads to abuse no?

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 8:09:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I guess I missed the part in the last 32 pages or so where your point of view changed. Did you go on about how abortions were elective surgery and shouldn't be covered? By a healthcare bill, yes, because I feel that many people are treating public healthcare as something that should be the best, most comprehensive plan there is, when in actually it's usually a bare bones safety net that covers things that are medically necessary, not things that are socially necessary. I said quite a few times that I have no problem with government funding/assistance for abortions in a social welfare bill, or offering funding to clinics in exchange for abiding by an extreme sliding scale. True. Ok, I remember that part now after which we discussed it would probably take another 5-10 years to get the abortions funded and in the meantime a bunch of unwanted babies would be born or women would get sick or die going to charlatan discount clinics. Now do you see why it should be added now in the healthcare bill? Maybe? Just a little? Didn't WyldHrt's argument have an impact? - LA

came4U -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 8:16:59 PM)
quote: So you care for the unborn child so much you want to put it through the experience of having parents that resent it? People won’t be nice parents just because you want them to be. We should look into the abuse angle because resentment often leads to abuse no? That is life. Some children scraped our knees, some children are abused, some fell off cliffs as a toddler because a parent wasn't watching closely. Things happen, bad things happen to children, even those that are loved. Sometimes even society (or governement) has to step in and remove that child from harm. Sometime that child grows up in foster homes and becomes a great painter, a great doctor or even a great parent. Who am I to take that child from his/her decree of destiny?? Who are you to? If someone isn't loved, are they therefore unfit to live? If a husband resents his wife, should she die? If you resent your boss, should you push him off the roof? Who are you to decide what a fetus's future will hold? Loved or resented, shit happens. Me, personally, I wouldn't have an abortion and would persuade anyone I know who is having to conciously decide such, from doing so.

Elisabella -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 8:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika True. Ok, I remember that part now after which we discussed it would probably take another 5-10 years to get the abortions funded and in the meantime a bunch of unwanted babies would be born or women would get sick or die going to charlatan discount clinics. Now do you see why it should be added now in the healthcare bill? Maybe? Just a little? Didn't WyldHrt's argument have an impact? I still don't see it as important enough to prevent a public healthcare bill from passing, but to be honest the more I'm reading about the proposed bill the more I think it needs to be reworked completely. As it is now, an abortion is a lot more affordable to pay out of pocket than treatment for breast cancer is, and I'd hate to see other womens' health issues get sidelined for this.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 8:51:37 PM)
Fair enough. I feel fortunate that these things are covered in my country. - LA

Phoenixpower -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:00:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Who am I to take that child from his/her decree of destiny?? Who are you to? Quite frankly with being the one who is carrying the child in such a situation I have every fucking right to influence the destiny when the pregnancy itself threatens my own health for different reasons as nobody is helped at the end if I potentially wouldn't have survived and the kid might be left with whomever in uncertainty or died as well...when you experience that your life is at risk and you just wait to see what happens...thats fine, take your back seat in your cinema and wait and see... however when I experience that my situation changed and that the new situation I am in can kill me then I do set my priority above the future kid, as quite frankly I don't consider myself to be any less important the foetus.

ShaharThorne -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:05:47 PM)
When I had my 2nd miscarriage, I showed up at my doctor's office (came in the back door) and told him that I did not feel pregnant anymore. Of course I was bleeding and losing tissue. He checked me into the hospital and performed a D&C to clear out the last of the lining. Later I was able to get a copy of path report and it said afterbirth matter. There was also a report about my sonogram showing only the sac, no tadpole. This is known as a missing pregnancy. I did get on Medicaid at that time and it paid for the hospital, the doctor's visits and a pair of glasses (I was like nearly blind when I was that age). Now...if the health bill can okay the abortion issue, I will support it. There is one thing though...the more a woman relies on an abortion to eliminate the fetus, the weaker the cervix can get. I did have the D&C procedure performed on me 4 times (3 before Lizard) and I was knocked out for all of them. I did not hear the vacuum going. I know that if I did, I would not live with myself. Valium and morphine was my friend in those times. It is the woman's choice. If the woman wants a tattoo, I will not flinch. If Lizard wants a nose piercing, I would take her to a specialist who does the job in a professional and clean manner. I got the health bill on the abortion section up. I want to transfer (read cut and paste) the info here, but this computer is not exactly new.

Arpig -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 9:55:39 PM)
quote: Who am I to take that child from his/her decree of destiny?? There is no such thing as "destiny"...no child is foreordained to be anything...that's a bullshit arguement based on ignorant superstition.

WyldHrt -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:18:49 PM)
quote: you can compare ALL day with different analogies (no pun intended) but you cannot compare one incident/action with another. That is like comparing childbirth of a human vs a chicken laying an egg. Kinda similar but, not exactly what one would call an accurate description LOL Of course you can, and the driving one is particularly apt. Do you drive, C4U? If so, every time you get behind the wheel, you are taking a risk. You are on the road with a bunch of strangers, some of whom may be drunk, some of whom are definitely speeding, driving recklessly, talking on cell phones, munching on fast food, and/or doing any number of other things that can cause an accident. Good drivers know all this, and do their best to mitigate the risks. They use seat belts, get cars with good airbags, avoid speeding and driving recklessly, watch other drivers carefully..... and guess what? Sometimes even the best, most careful drivers get into accidents. Sometimes they are killed, and sometimes they even kill others. Sometimes they are injured very severely. It's a risk that everyone takes when they choose to drive. So, according to you, should responsible, intelligent people all sell their cars and buy bicycles? Walk everywhere? After all, cars are a convenience, not a necessity. Do those who get into car accidents despite their best attempts to avoid them get your contempt? Do you call them names? Inquiring minds want to know.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:21:19 PM)
WyldHrt. Why don't we just all stay home, in bunkers no less! You know, there is a risk of being struck by lightning! - LA

Aylee -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:27:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika WyldHrt. Why don't we just all stay home, in bunkers no less! You know, there is a risk of being struck by lightning! - LA Because that could lead to sex! And we do not want ANY frivolous sex.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika WyldHrt. Why don't we just all stay home, in bunkers no less! You know, there is a risk of being struck by lightning! - LA Because that could lead to sex! And we do not want ANY frivolous sex. See I've already fixed half the problem. My strap-on penis does not impregnate men when I stick it up their tight little derrières ;-) - LA

WyldHrt -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:43:57 PM)
quote: WyldHrt. Why don't we just all stay home, in bunkers no less! You know, there is a risk of being struck by lightning! Good point, LA! starts googling DIY bunker plans. [;)] quote: Because that could lead to sex! And we do not want ANY frivolous sex. [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]

WyldHrt -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/20/2010 10:48:10 PM)
quote: See I've already fixed half the problem. My strap-on penis does not impregnate men when I stick it up their tight little derrières ;-) Once again, LA is the voice of reason! [:D] Anal is the perfect solution to all unwanted pregnancy, folks! No cocks in vajayjays, and you can even do it with your legs closed! Time to start an international campaign championing anal sex! That should go over pretty well with the religious right [8D]

Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.2773438