IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Abortion - Father's Rights?
Baldman_Sonetti
post May 24 2006, 09:02 PM
Post #1


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 20-August 05
From: Glasgow, the Heart of Rockstar North Country
Member No.: 23,206



At present there is something of a debate going on as to whether or not young adults and teenagers who are having an abortion should be required to have a parent informed prior to the operation. This was the stimulus for my thread, but is not the issue I wish to discuss. This is also not an issue of the morality of abortion.

What I wish to discuss is whether or not the father, regardless of age, should have the right to be consulted before the abortion.

I wish to make perfectly clear that I do not in any way advocate that a father should have more say than the mother in deciding the future of an unborn child. Rather what I think is important is that in involving the father, the couple can properly discuss the implications of aborting the foetus, and the alternatives available to them. I feel these conversations should take place under the supervision of a social worker or medical professional, primarily in order to ensure that the mother is not being coerced and secondarily to assess the mental impact on both parties and what stress it might place on their relationship, so that they can be fast-tracked into any appropriate counselling (or as the case may unfortunately sometimes be, protection) following the procedure.

I believe there are several advantages to a programme such as this. Firstly, the discussions between the potential parents may prevent the abortion altogther, and as a popular alternative adoption can provide babies for infertile couples, rather than expensive IVF treatment.
Secondly, forcing the couple to talk about the implications of having a baby may promote a more stable relationship and limit promiscuity, as couples are faced with the hard reality of having to accept the actions of their consequences together. Thirdly, it provides a means through which to identify cases of abuse, whether sexual, psychological or otherwise, through the monitored meetings and discussions, which might otherwise go unnoticed. Fourthly, it can alleviate or eliminate stress brought upon the potential mother who would have otherwise tried to keep the abortion a secret from their partner.

If not above these, then at least as important as these is that a father should know if his child has been aborted. For want of a far better comparison, it is similar to kidnapping. "What he doesn't know won't hurt him" is not a responsible line to take in matters of familial stability and this should no longer be an option, unless in special circumstances such as a relationship with an abusive partner.


--------------------
IPB Image

I'm not racist, I'm just better than you. Flame on.

IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caliguy
post May 25 2006, 01:49 AM
Post #2


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 132



Very well stated. This is an example of how topics should look in here.
I think that it should be mandatory for the couple to be given all of the options, and the side effects with them. I know this isn't a "Is abortion morally right?" topic, but I don't agree with abortion, so I think this would be a very good first step: Informing the couple of the issue. Health (both mental and physical) is a big part of having an abortion, of course, and it isn't just an easy procedure that will get rid of the "nuisance", as most couples will look at it. It can be very dangerous. But most already know that.
The father should be completely informed on the mother having an abortion, so that he may even offer to pay whatever costs (if any, and by costs I mean getting things in order and moral support) to get the baby adopted.
Once the couple hears of the many women who have gotten an abortion and regretted it, it might make them think twice.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gingergenius
post May 25 2006, 05:48 AM
Post #3


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



the mother should have the deciding say in things - its her body that gets affected anyway. but if she knows who the father is, she should at least consult him about it cos its really unfair if the man thinks shes aborting and ends up being a father, or if he thinks hes gonna be a father and finds out shehad an abortion. but still ultimately the woman's choice.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Handsome B Wonde...
post May 25 2006, 01:18 PM
Post #4


Jesus Christ Monkeyballs!
*

Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 21-November 04
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 5,644



I agree the father should be notified, but like gingergenius said, the mother should decide. It all depends on the situation. If it's an older couple, of course the father should have some say, And most of the time, older couples don't abort anyway, unless it's for health reasons.

With teenage girls who get pregnant, the father shouldn't have anything to do with the decision if the mother doesn't want him to. Who would want to be a parent at a young age anyway? A bunch of hicks, and some muslims, maybe.

People talk about the risks of abortion. What about the risks of childbirth? And imagine finding out that the child that you gave up for adoption was put into an abusive family. It does happen. I don't agree with giving up children for adoption unless it's absolutely necessary.

This post has been edited by Handsome B. Wonderful: May 25 2006, 01:21 PM


--------------------
QUOTE
I'm sorry, man, but I've got magic. I've got poetry in my fingertips. Most of the time - and this includes naps - I'm an F-18, bro. And I will destroy you in the air. I will deploy my ordinance to the ground.
Charlie Sheen
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nec
post May 25 2006, 03:04 PM
Post #5


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-May 06
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 29,610



Well, speaking as a mother (which I am), I absolutely agree that both should have equal say on the issue. While it is we women who actually carry/give birth/etc., it doesn't change the fact that the child is equally the father and mother's. If there were a way for the fetus to be transplanted into an artifical womb so that a child that the mother doesn't want, and the father does can live without the mother having to go through 9 months of hell, that would be great. But right now that doesn't seem to be an option. I do hope that science with figure this one out. I also think that the parent who doesn't want the child should not be held financially responsible. That is the responsibility of the one who wants it in a case like this...but that is a different topic.

But the bottom line is, if you play you pay. And if you happen to be the woman who doesn't want a baby and the father does - tough shit...you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. That is a responsibility that you must be willing to take on, even if you use birth control.


--------------------

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 25 2006, 05:17 PM
Post #6


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(Baldman_Sonetti @ May 24 2006, 06:59 PM) [snapback]1159365[/snapback]

What I wish to discuss is whether or not the father, regardless of age, should have the right to be consulted before the abortion.

Nope. It's living as a parasite within the female and so the male should have absolutely no say. It would be like having the female need to consult with the male in order to get a tapeworm removed to ringworm treated. Requiring it merely decreases the time the two individuals involved have before an abortion can no longer be performed. Also, the longer one waits the more dangerous it becomes.


QUOTE
I wish to make perfectly clear that I do not in any way advocate that a father should have more say than the mother in deciding the future of an unborn child. Rather what I think is important is that in involving the father, the couple can properly discuss the implications of aborting the foetus, and the alternatives available to them.

While the emotions may be flowing and confusion may take place, one might still be well aware of the possibilities and potential repurcussions for them. I think ones doctor is the best person to discuss the implications with. Most people are ignorant on many topics yet doctors frequently read studies, journals, etc. in their field.


QUOTE
I feel these conversations should take place under the supervision of a social worker or medical professional, primarily in order to ensure that the mother is not being coerced and secondarily to assess the mental impact on both parties and what stress it might place on their relationship, so that they can be fast-tracked into any appropriate counselling (or as the case may unfortunately sometimes be, protection) following the procedure.

What if they already know of the implications, will you force them to sit there for 10 minutes like kids being punished?

The good thing about this is that it has the chance where it may discover any abuse in relationships. As for stress, it's a safe bet that any couple which know about it will feel some kind of stress. I would actually say more feel a great amount of stress as opposed to none.


QUOTE
I believe there are several advantages to a programme such as this. Firstly, the discussions between the potential parents may prevent the abortion altogther, and as a popular alternative adoption can provide babies for infertile couples, rather than expensive IVF treatment.

Preventing the abortion isn't necessarily an advantage. Definately not to the couple in question financially.

People go through IVF because they want to, not just because they don't want to go through the adoption process. There is an emotional connection with being pregnant with a child and then giving birth to it. Mothers generally feel a greater attachment to it then if they simply adopted one. It's all psychological. If someone is willing and able to pay for the treatment then I don't really care.


QUOTE
Secondly, forcing the couple to talk about the implications of having a baby may promote a more stable relationship and limit promiscuity, as couples are faced with the hard reality of having to accept the actions of their consequences together.

The country is pretty divided on the issue and while one would expect couples to be communicating, especially on such topics as this one may actually be splitting them up or causing resentment. Not all couples best work with having to deal with every issue together. This isn't an ideal world where everyone has someone who perfectly is matched to them. It's best to let couples deal with things as they best do. If it's respecting each others ability to make decisions then why mess with that if it's what works? Shit, if I ever get into cohabitating with a female significant other and she gets pregnant, I may prefer an abortion but I would likely support her regardless of the decision made simply because I don't go for the no brains type so why would you want to waste our time, especially when we could be off doing more important things?

Before trying to get relationships to be stable you may want to target why people go for those they do. You might find a much higher success rate in dealing with the way in which society gets people to look for significant others. Have people actually want to learn about each others political and philosophical views. This will do far more in finding if one is compatible with another and so likely lead to more stable relationships. The problem today is that such topics are a virtual taboo so much knowledge is lacking for a while after they started seeing each other.

Screw what your favorite color is, tell me what you think of the Allegory of the Cave.


QUOTE
Thirdly, it provides a means through which to identify cases of abuse, whether sexual, psychological or otherwise, through the monitored meetings and discussions, which might otherwise go unnoticed.

It isn't enough that you observe potential cases of abuse. The victim must be willing to follow through on the charges otherwise you've got squat.


QUOTE
Fourthly, it can alleviate or eliminate stress brought upon the potential mother who would have otherwise tried to keep the abortion a secret from their partner.

I don't know, there must be a reason why the potential mother would want to keep it a secret and by forcing her to bring it out wouldn't you just be making it worse for them?


QUOTE
If not above these, then at least as important as these is that a father should know if his child has been aborted.

Why is it important that the potential father should know? So that they become depressed and possibly resent the potential mother? What's done is done.


QUOTE
For want of a far better comparison, it is similar to kidnapping. "What he doesn't know won't hurt him" is not a responsible line to take in matters of familial stability and this should no longer be an option, unless in special circumstances such as a relationship with an abusive partner.

I certainly see it as being a responsible line to take in matters of familial stability as forcing one to tell another could destabilize the circumstances surrounding the relationship and the last thing we need is more broken homes. What we should do is be refering those who get abortions and have babies to psychologists as studies find that both have heightened rates of depression from the rest of the population. Get their issues dealt with and maybe some won't feel the need to abort any more babies, if that's your concern.


Regardless, because women can get an abortion without their partners consent men should not be forced to pay child support if they agreed that they didn't want kids or it was a one night stand.




QUOTE(Nec @ May 25 2006, 01:01 PM) [snapback]1159682[/snapback]

Well, speaking as a mother (which I am), I absolutely agree that both should have equal say on the issue. While it is we women who actually carry/give birth/etc., it doesn't change the fact that the child is equally the father and mother's.

Fewer genes on the Y chromosome and women carrying the child has me say that whether it's both of theirs equally depends on the gender of the child. Furthermore if the father wants the child then he can have it.....after the abortion just like after the birth. Equality in gender tissue means diddly squat to me unless as I've said before it can be taken out of one female and put in another, consenting, female or let it survive on machines. Right now machines are an option into the early 3rd trimester. The female should pay for the cost up to what the abortion would have costed her but after that it's on the hands of the male, or other person(s) that are going to take care of the child, or society as a whole if the child will be put into an orphanage.


QUOTE
But the bottom line is, if you play you pay. And if you happen to be the woman who doesn't want a baby and the father does - tough shit...you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. That is a responsibility that you must be willing to take on, even if you use birth control.

They deal with the pregnancy, they are responsible in that they deal with the pregnancy through abortion or birth. It doesn't matter. Only through inaction or a lack of thought on a given topic can one be irresponsible and in this case the only person who can be irresponsible is one who gives birth. That isn't to say that those who give birth are irresponsible but that to give birth is something that results from inaction. Abortion requires thought and action so it in no way is irresponsible.

People may say it is irresponsible because it isn't in line with their views but the idea they use there isn't the common, dictionary, definition of the word or idea behind it but that's the symbol they use for immoral which is a totally different thing.


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GFX.Absinthe
post May 25 2006, 05:46 PM
Post #7


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: 24-February 06
From: -_-
Member No.: 28,296



If i ever have an abortion i would at least want to talk about it with the "father". Cause he needs to know about it because he might not want it.. so i think its important for the two parents to discuss it


--------------------
Im retired go away. :(
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 25 2006, 06:01 PM
Post #8


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(DameDaSnipa @ May 25 2006, 03:43 PM) [snapback]1159797[/snapback]

If i ever have an abortion i would at least want to talk about it with the "father". Cause he needs to know about it because he might not want it.. so i think its important for the two parents to discuss it

eh, it's really only important for the female to know about unless the two previously agreed to having kids. If the two agreed not to have kids but were adamantly opposed to it, using two different kids of birth control then I see absolutely no harm in it being kept secret. The goal here should be preserving what relationships are currently in place while getting them to be more open. I'm not so certain such a controversial topic as abortion would really do it.

Of course there are other important reasons for the female to tell the male and that would be she may need his support.

Question - why do you think the potential father needs to know?


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nec
post May 25 2006, 07:16 PM
Post #9


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-May 06
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 29,610



QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ May 25 2006, 03:14 PM) [snapback]1159776[/snapback]

Fewer genes on the Y chromosome and women carrying the child has me say that whether it's both of theirs equally depends on the gender of the child. Furthermore if the father wants the child then he can have it.....after the abortion just like after the birth. Equality in gender tissue means diddly squat to me unless as I've said before it can be taken out of one female and put in another, consenting, female or let it survive on machines. Right now machines are an option into the early 3rd trimester. The female should pay for the cost up to what the abortion would have costed her but after that it's on the hands of the male, or other person(s) that are going to take care of the child, or society as a whole if the child will be put into an orphanage.


Well, it takes two - you can't have a baby without both genders contributing. Simple as that. I agree that for the "being kept alive on machines" thing or "transplant" (should only the father want it) that the mother should pay up to the cost of having it aborted. That makes sense.



QUOTE
People may say it is irresponsible because it isn't in line with their views but the idea they use there isn't the common, dictionary, definition of the word or idea behind it but that's the symbol they use for immoral which is a totally different thing.


I do not think abortion is irresponsible if both parties agree, and it is the best solution. I think it is irresponsible if used as a form of birth control. The "day after" pill falls into the same category. What I was saying is that when you have sex - protected or not - you have to accept the risk of pregnancy beforehand.


--------------------

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 25 2006, 08:14 PM
Post #10


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(Nec @ May 25 2006, 05:13 PM) [snapback]1159908[/snapback]

Well, it takes two - you can't have a baby without both genders contributing. Simple as that.

I don't know, I recall reading about two eggs being used to fertilize one if proven true then men are unnecessary for the creation of offspring.


QUOTE
I do not think abortion is irresponsible if both parties agree, and it is the best solution.

Best solution for who or what? The question being directed at for what reasons do you or do you not support abortion. This is actually loosely related to the topic because it gives you insight as to your views on it in great scale.

QUOTE
I think it is irresponsible if used as a form of birth control. The "day after" pill falls into the same category. What I was saying is that when you have sex - protected or not - you have to accept the risk of pregnancy beforehand.

So how does using it as a form of birth control become irresponsible? What about it is so? Can not one say that by having sex you are accepting the risk of pregnancy whether you know it exists or not?


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nec
post May 25 2006, 09:03 PM
Post #11


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-May 06
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 29,610



QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ May 25 2006, 06:11 PM) [snapback]1159950[/snapback]

I don't know, I recall reading about two eggs being used to fertilize one if proven true then men are unnecessary for the creation of offspring.


Then that would be considered a pregnancy of CHOICE, and therefore not relevant to this.

QUOTE
Best solution for who or what? The question being directed at for what reasons do you or do you not support abortion. This is actually loosely related to the topic because it gives you insight as to your views on it in great scale.


As in both parents do not want the child, or if for some reason it could kill the mother and/or baby and the parents choose to not have it because of that. I also think it is a viable solution for pregnancy due to rape/incest if the victim does not want the baby.

QUOTE
So how does using it as a form of birth control become irresponsible? What about it is so? Can not one say that by having sex you are accepting the risk of pregnancy whether you know it exists or not?


If you are taking precautions to not get pregnant (ie pills, condoms, depo-provera - whatever) that is one thing. If you are just casually having unprotected sex all the time and have abortions on a regular basis, I view that as irresponsible. Not only to the potential life-form, but to your body as well. Abortion is very hard on the body. You can take whatever view you want. This is my opinion.

As far as accepting the risk of pregnancy by having sex, I listed that in my first post in this thread. If one doesn't know pregnancy exists, then there is a serious problem with that. That would be the fault of whoever is responsible for teaching whoever it is doesn't know pregnancy exists at an age where they can become pregnant.

This post has been edited by Nec: May 25 2006, 09:09 PM


--------------------

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 25 2006, 09:57 PM
Post #12


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(Nec @ May 25 2006, 07:00 PM) [snapback]1159982[/snapback]

Then that would be considered a pregnancy of CHOICE, and therefore not relevant to this.

Except that you said a baby couldn't be had without both genders.

A pregnancy of choice.....sounds like that could mean a pregnancy due to consensual acts which would include sex or any scientific procedure. Then again that statement could and in this context probably just means a wanted pregnancy.

QUOTE
As in both parents do not want the child, or if for some reason it could kill the mother and/or baby and the parents choose to not have it because of that. I also think it is a viable solution for pregnancy due to rape/incest if the victim does not want the baby.

Acknowledged.

Now, in cases of rape and incest do you think the father should know? Remember, incest if of legal age is perfectly legal at least to the extent of cousins. I know in one state a brother and sister even got married. I'm guessing you'll say no in cases of rape and depending on the circumstances for incest but I don't know you so please feel free to explain. This question of course stands for others who think the father should be notified.

QUOTE
If you are taking precautions to not get pregnant (ie pills, condoms, depo-provera - whatever) that is one thing. If you are just casually having unprotected sex all the time and have abortions on a regular basis, I view that as irresponsible. Not only to the potential life-form, but to your body as well. Abortion is very hard on the body. You can take whatever view you want.

So basically if the risks of pregnancy are 10% or 30% or even near non-existant due to the time in the period, it doesn't matter unless one selects the time in order to minimize the chances of pregnancy, correct?

Question, if you eat uncooked foods are you not as irresponsible as someone who has unprotected sex? Cooking food kills bacteria and any larva for parasitic life forms but eating it uncooked allows for the full chance that one may grow inside of you.


What responsibility does one have towards the "potential life-form" and what says this responsibility exists? Better yet, how do you personally define responsibility? I think we have two different definitions so we need to clear it up and see exactly where we are. I define the term as simply dealing with something.

QUOTE
This is my opinion.

People may hold any range of opinions on any number of topics, it doesn't mean they have firm foundations though and this is the reason why I participate in these discussions. I see few benefits in never questioning or challenging ones own position.


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nec
post May 26 2006, 01:20 AM
Post #13


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-May 06
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 29,610



QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ May 25 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]1159995[/snapback]

Except that you said a baby couldn't be had without both genders.


In the case of "accidental" pregnancy where one would consider abortion, which involves father's rights (which happens to be the topic of this thread) This would, in fact, be the case. As far as your claim involving 2 eggs creating a fetus - please provide facts to prove this - as in documantation. According to New Scientist (a very reputable scientific publication) this has not happened successfully, though it was attempted.

QUOTE
A pregnancy of choice.....sounds like that could mean a pregnancy due to consensual acts which would include sex or any scientific procedure. Then again that statement could and in this context probably just means a wanted pregnancy.


Uh...yeah. Also, a pregnancy of choice would not include abortion. Most of the time.

QUOTE
Now, in cases of rape and incest do you think the father should know?


Yes...now let me see if I can track down that rapist so I can tell him he is a father-to-be. He will be *so* proud. I really miss the bastard anyway.

QUOTE
Remember, incest if of legal age is perfectly legal at least to the extent of cousins. I know in one state a brother and sister even got married. I'm guessing you'll say no in cases of rape and depending on the circumstances for incest but I don't know you so please feel free to explain. This question of course stands for others who think the father should be notified.


Let me clarify: unwanted incest which would not be consensual

QUOTE
So basically if the risks of pregnancy are 10% or 30% or even near non-existant due to the time in the period, it doesn't matter unless one selects the time in order to minimize the chances of pregnancy, correct?


I have no idea where you got your numbers from - but they are a bit odd. The risk factor varies greatly between forms of birth control, as well as the fertility of both parties concerned. Having unprotected sex - regardless of what time of the month is not without risk. Some women ovulate irregularly, and therefore having unprotected sex during menses is not risk-free.

QUOTE
Question, if you eat uncooked foods are you not as irresponsible as someone who has unprotected sex? Cooking food kills bacteria and any larva for parasitic life forms but eating it uncooked allows for the full chance that one may grow inside of you.


What the hell do uncooked foods have to do with this?

QUOTE
What responsibility does one have towards the "potential life-form" and what says this responsibility exists? Better yet, how do you personally define responsibility? I think we have two different definitions so we need to clear it up and see exactly where we are. I define the term as simply dealing with something.


I don't think we need to clear up anything. Your definition works for you, as long as it doesn't affect me, that is fine.




--------------------

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 26 2006, 01:59 AM
Post #14


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(Nec @ May 25 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]1160054[/snapback]

In the case of "accidental" pregnancy where one would consider abortion, which involves father's rights (which happens to be the topic of this thread) This would, in fact, be the case. As far as your claim involving 2 eggs creating a fetus - please provide facts to prove this - as in documantation. According to New Scientist (a very reputable scientific publication) this has not happened successfully, though it was attempted.

I'll start looking for the source. Can't remember anything which especially stands out so I'll need some time.

It's about time someone did some homework here when debating with me thumbup.gif

QUOTE
Yes...now let me see if I can track down that rapist so I can tell him he is a father-to-be. He will be *so* proud. I really miss the bastard anyway.

Even the most seemingly obvious of answers must have their questions asked to search for contradictions.

QUOTE
Let me clarify: unwanted incest which would not be consensual

Ah, so rape again then.

QUOTE
I have no idea where you got your numbers from - but they are a bit odd. The risk factor varies greatly between forms of birth control, as well as the fertility of both parties concerned. Having unprotected sex - regardless of what time of the month is not without risk. Some women ovulate irregularly, and therefore having unprotected sex during menses is not risk-free.

The ten to thirty percent is the average risk of pregnancy when having sex without contraceptives at certain points in ones menstrual cycle for normal periods. For abnormal cycles it would obviously be different. If one ovulates regularly then there is quite literally no risk at certain times in ones menstrual cycle from a few days before menses to a few days after. In reality there is only about 5 days where there is such a risk assuming only one egg is released.

Now, if you want to discuss the risk factor for various types of birth control feel free to start it up, I'll get my book with yearly pregnancy rates for perfect and typical use out sometime tomorrow.

QUOTE
What the hell do uncooked foods have to do with this?

A fetus is a biological form of parasite as are tapeworms and ringworm. Why treat one parasite one way and the other a different way? I'm questioning what makes humans so special that to kill one off or simply remove it while it's in its biological parasitic form is an irresponsible act yet to remove the rest isn't.

QUOTE
I don't think we need to clear up anything. Your definition works for you, as long as it doesn't affect me, that is fine.

Sure there is some clearing up to do unless my original statement where people use "irresponsibility" to mean "immoral" fits you. We don't appear to agree on the idea behind a particular symbol being where the clearing up comes into place. How can one understand another if the terminology differs in usage and it isn't know what the usage is?


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nec
post May 26 2006, 03:39 AM
Post #15


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-May 06
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 29,610



QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ May 25 2006, 11:56 PM) [snapback]1160066[/snapback]

Now, if you want to discuss the risk factor for various types of birth control feel free to start it up, I'll get my book with yearly pregnancy rates for perfect and typical use out sometime tomorrow.


That's ok, I have access to all the information myself, as well as personal experience with multiple forms. (One must always research to participate in an effective debate without talking out of their ass) wink.gif

QUOTE
A fetus is a biological form of parasite as are tapeworms and ringworm. Why treat one parasite one way and the other a different way? I'm questioning what makes humans so special that to kill one off or simply remove it while it's in its biological parasitic form is an irresponsible act yet to remove the rest isn't.


I suppose the most likely reasons I cannot compare fetuses to parasties are these: Humans are parasites by behavior, yes. But they must learn to be that way, by my definition. We choose to feed off of the planet and each other, thus destroying it and each other - which is the purpose of a parasite (to ultimately weaken and destroy the host). The reason I do not consider fetuses to be parasites is because their purpose is to grow, mature, and be nourished until birth. They have no ability to destroy the mother by doing so, unless the mother's health is already compromised in such a way that it would cause harm. However, this is not the fault of the fetus, but the condition of it's "host." The other reason is that I happen to have one of these "parasites", and while he can be a pain in the ass, he does not seek to destroy me. In fact, he is my best friend, and we do lots of things together and I happen to love my parasite. I choose to call him my demon spawn, however. It suits him better. Parasite does not suit him yet.

QUOTE
Sure there is some clearing up to do unless my original statement where people use "irresponsibility" to mean "immoral" fits you. We don't appear to agree on the idea behind a particular symbol being where the clearing up comes into place. How can one understand another if the terminology differs in usage and it isn't know what the usage is?


"Immoral" and "Irresponsible" have two completely different meanings, however, they can be used conjunctively quite effectively.

Immoral is relative to an individual's view of any subject that may fall into that category - which also varies from individual to individual. Irresponsible is also relative to the individual, however it can be used in a blanket sort of fashion for certain things. The view of that, of course, depends on the morals of the individual as well.

This post has been edited by Nec: May 26 2006, 03:41 AM


--------------------

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 26 2006, 03:46 PM
Post #16


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(Nec @ May 26 2006, 01:36 AM) [snapback]1160099[/snapback]

That's ok, I have access to all the information myself, as well as personal experience with multiple forms. (One must always research to participate in an effective debate without talking out of their ass) wink.gif

heh, whether one is talking out of their ass I think is dependant on the direction the conversation takes.


QUOTE
I suppose the most likely reasons I cannot compare fetuses to parasties are these: Humans are parasites by behavior, yes. But they must learn to be that way, by my definition. We choose to feed off of the planet and each other, thus destroying it and each other - which is the purpose of a parasite (to ultimately weaken and destroy the host). The reason I do not consider fetuses to be parasites is because their purpose is to grow, mature, and be nourished until birth. They have no ability to destroy the mother by doing so, unless the mother's health is already compromised in such a way that it would cause harm. However, this is not the fault of the fetus, but the condition of it's "host." The other reason is that I happen to have one of these "parasites", and while he can be a pain in the ass, he does not seek to destroy me. In fact, he is my best friend, and we do lots of things together and I happen to love my parasite. I choose to call him my demon spawn, however. It suits him better. Parasite does not suit him yet.

Parasites as species generally (unintentionally) work towards an equilibrium with their host due to if the host dies they die as it's extremely difficult if not virtually impossible for at least some types of parasites to move to a new host on its own after it is already settled in one.

"Mortality/Morbidity: Many cestode infestations are asymptomatic. However, once symptoms occur, they are usually vague GI complaints such as abdominal pain, anorexia, weight loss, or malaise."

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic567.htm

So while tapeworms can kill people they don't always do so. I recall someone else after arguing the scientific definition of a parasite agreed that a fetus was one yet still thought that it shouldn't be rid of as certain parasites are lethal while others are not. I brought up the question that if one of any species won't kill you must you keep it inside of you and let it live and they never were able to answer the question.

It doesn't matter how much you love it for the scientific definition of what a parasite is doesn't have love into the equation. You can love something yet it contribute virtually nothing positive to your existance. A fetus makes the female sick while pregnant with it. The only possible benefits are entirely psychological but while being under the stress, having mood swings and even with the post partum depression that sometimes occurs it can easily be said that such benefits are minimal at best. They actually make it harder on the one carrying it.


QUOTE
"Immoral" and "Irresponsible" have two completely different meanings, however, they can be used conjunctively quite effectively.

People seem to intertwin the definitions saying one is irresponsible if one does something they specifically do not approve of. Basically claiming that their morals, their values means that another has specific obligations when in truth one really only has an obligation should they decide to take one on and it can easily be shrugged off. I merely wanted to see if you hold such a definition or a different one.

As for the effectiveness of such a usage, using the two together. Its effectiveness depends on the crowd you are speaking to. If you're appealing to devot Christian masses then when speaking about their religion it can envoke a tremendous amount of feeling. Look at how the Bush administration has gotten into power, using emotions and non-issues based on the beliefs that many in the country have.

When it comes to me though I only laugh out of pity at those who use the term "immoral." I'm sure there are those who can define it in a sound way where they don't contradict themselves and can go full circle in a discussion defending it but I'm not talking about those.


QUOTE
Immoral is relative to an individual's view of any subject that may fall into that category - which also varies from individual to individual. Irresponsible is also relative to the individual, however it can be used in a blanket sort of fashion for certain things. The view of that, of course, depends on the morals of the individual as well.

Any word can be relative as a symbol as one uses the same symbol to represent a different idea. It's the ideas which matter and in the end, yes, I believe in absolute, objective truths so in the end if we can make our definitions (ideas) with scientific and mathematical support we can effectively terminate relativity in many areas.

Why are you avoiding the question about how you are using the term "irresponsible"? I don't see my asking as being so unreasonable as to warrant not answering.


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nec
post May 27 2006, 04:30 PM
Post #17


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-May 06
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 29,610



QUOTE(MetGreDKo @ May 26 2006, 01:43 PM) [snapback]1160334[/snapback]

Why are you avoiding the question about how you are using the term "irresponsible"? I don't see my asking as being so unreasonable as to warrant not answering.



I am not avoiding, I am generalizing. I have clearly stated in previous posts exactly what I think is irresponsible.

You are derailing the topic, so I will not participate in this debate with you anymore. If you want to debate tapeworms start a new thread.


--------------------

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MetGreDKo
post May 28 2006, 01:24 AM
Post #18


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-April 05
From: NYC
Member No.: 11,176



QUOTE(Nec @ May 27 2006, 02:27 PM) [snapback]1161052[/snapback]

I am not avoiding, I am generalizing. I have clearly stated in previous posts exactly what I think is irresponsible.

I'm not asking what you think is irresponsible but am asking how you define the term so yes, you are avoiding it.

QUOTE
You are derailing the topic, so I will not participate in this debate with you anymore. If you want to debate tapeworms start a new thread.

Since when is providing a perfectly valid comparison derailing a topic? I'm not debating tapeworms but questioning varied treatment of parasites and why. Now, if you are unable to address the issue then feel free to say so, you won't be the first nor the last but don't try and go make up reasons to avoid replying. People may not like the comparison due to the social connotation behind the word parasite, it being negative, but I couldn't care less about the connotation.


--------------------
IPB Image
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th October 2014 - 04:41 AM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4