Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Abortion


  • Please log in to reply
696 replies to this topic

#601
Locke_Superbus
[ Display Name History ]

Locke_Superbus

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 189 posts
  • Joined:10 November 2005

I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm frustrated with the amount of half truths put out and the attempts to obfuscate language.
It seems my summary still holds true, but you can add in "change the definition of person" to the pro-choice argument.


Certainly, but one justifies a pro-abortion stance by placing a higher value on present human life the convenience of a woman over the life of her child.



its like people have no concept of self awareness.....

#602
Duff
[ Display Name History ]

Duff

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Evergreen State
  • Joined:7 July 2011
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Also, sex is a primary need, that's the reason people use birth control: to fulfill a primary need without the complications of pregnancy.

People survive fine without having sex. And the act of sex has a purpose: to make a child. There is no primary 'need' to have sex. It's a desire, most likely inherent in us so that we don't fall off the face of this planet.

People use birth control to separate the responsibilities and consequences that come from sex (it's whole purpose being the creation of a child) from the pleasure one gets from it. And that, I find, is selfish when coupled with the fact that you will not die solely because you don't have sex.
Posted Image
| My Tumblr |

#603
Implying
[ Display Name History ]

Implying

    Chicken Feather

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:7 October 2011
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
So people should never just want to feel pleasure? They should, every time they feel the basest instinct, have to create another person?


Can you imagine what that would do to the human population? It would explode. We already have too many people, we don't need to increase our numbers any further.

#604
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts


Also, sex is a primary need, that's the reason people use birth control: to fulfill a primary need without the complications of pregnancy.

People survive fine without having sex. And the act of sex has a purpose: to make a child. There is no primary 'need' to have sex. It's a desire, most likely inherent in us so that we don't fall off the face of this planet.

People use birth control to separate the responsibilities and consequences that come from sex (it's whole purpose being the creation of a child) from the pleasure one gets from it. And that, I find, is selfish when coupled with the fact that you will not die solely because you don't have sex.

Posted Image
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Also, see that food and shelter is at the bottom with sex. You can also enjoy those without needing to fulfill them to keep living. I can eat something right now, and enjoy it just for the taste rather than to fill my stomach, and it would still be a primary need. Sexual desire is not a part of our nature as animals that we need to suppress, and now we can minimize the risks of sexual contact.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#605
Randox
[ Display Name History ]

Randox

    The Consultant

  • Administrators
  • 6,605 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:21 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired
  • RSN:Randox
  • Clan:All Friendly


Also, sex is a primary need, that's the reason people use birth control: to fulfill a primary need without the complications of pregnancy.

People survive fine without having sex. And the act of sex has a purpose: to make a child. There is no primary 'need' to have sex. It's a desire, most likely inherent in us so that we don't fall off the face of this planet.

People use birth control to separate the responsibilities and consequences that come from sex (it's whole purpose being the creation of a child) from the pleasure one gets from it. And that, I find, is selfish when coupled with the fact that you will not die solely because you don't have sex.


Your right in that we shouldn't have sex until we are ready to have a child. That would be the responsible thing to do. But guess what, that's not how the world works. This is why there are condom dispensers in high school bathrooms. People realized that this shouldn't happen, but it does, and rather than going all high and mighty about it, they should try to find ways to minimize the damage. Birth control like condoms and the pill are two of those damage control measures. Aborting is a more extreme version.

Sure, the problem shouldn't exist, but it does, so we need to deal with it.


And to the whole convenience thing...having a child is a decision that will have consequences that could carry on for years, even if you go with adoption. First, you have the actual physical problem of carrying a baby, and that works over about 9 months, but then you have potential emotional and social effects. For your mind, there is a chance of postpartum depression. Socially, if your a young teenage girl, then you have your family to deal with to. There are parents that will disown their children if they find out they got pregnant out of wedlock, and if you carry the baby to term, you can be sure they are going to notice. That's not an inconvenience, that's life shattering. Or maybe you have a girl that is already living on the street, and there is no way she can get the food required to support her and a baby. Or maybe the mother has a drug problem, and there is no way that she is going to be able to go 9 months without drinking, or doing something else, without first being able to go to rehab.

Things like adoption are not really a viable option for everyone, and is unbelievably insulting to imply that having a baby is an inconvenience :evil:

#606
Duff
[ Display Name History ]

Duff

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Evergreen State
  • Joined:7 July 2011
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

So people should never just want to feel pleasure? They should, every time they feel the basest instinct, have to create another person?

Master your desires. Tons of people do it. People should never act solely on their appetites, especially when doing so could, as many pro-choice people in this thread hint at, ruin your life.

Can you imagine what that would do to the human population? It would explode. We already have too many people, we don't need to increase our numbers any further.

A woman is not always fertile. You can have sex without creating a child. The problem (that seems like it will never be solved, unfortunately) is that people feel they must have sex, even before they're ready to raise a child.



Also, sex is a primary need, that's the reason people use birth control: to fulfill a primary need without the complications of pregnancy.

People survive fine without having sex. And the act of sex has a purpose: to make a child. There is no primary 'need' to have sex. It's a desire, most likely inherent in us so that we don't fall off the face of this planet.

People use birth control to separate the responsibilities and consequences that come from sex (it's whole purpose being the creation of a child) from the pleasure one gets from it. And that, I find, is selfish when coupled with the fact that you will not die solely because you don't have sex.

Posted Image
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Also, see that food and shelter is at the bottom with sex. You can also enjoy those without needing to fulfill them to keep living. I can eat something right now, and enjoy it just for the taste rather than to fill my stomach, and it would still be a primary need. Sexual desire is not a part of our nature as animals that we need to suppress, and now that we can minimize the risks of sexual contact.

I look at that hierarchy (knew it'd be brought up) and I see those primary needs. Each one, if ignored for a lifetime, would result in death; each one except sex. Why do you think sex is a primary need? Is it because of the pleasure we get from it, or because we need it to keep the human race alive? Your food example does not apply, because food, regardless if you're hungry or not, still gives your body nutrients. You do not separate the act of gaining nutrients from the pleasure of eating something by eating it with the mindset that, "Hey, I'm not hungry, but this tastes good, so I'll eat it." The pleasure of eating it is still coupled with some sort of nutrient gain. It should be the same with sex: you can have sex for the pleasure, but you shouldn't separate this pleasure wholly from what sex is for in the first place.

@Randox, I agree with you. I just find abortion and birth control, even though their damage control 'things', as giving more people a reason to have sex without being ready for a child. They have a 'way out', so to speak. I see them as doing more damage then help at this point.

I know it won't change anytime soon. And that sucks. :\
Posted Image
| My Tumblr |

#607
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,503 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
Duff I understand your point of view and fully support your decisions however you have no right to force other people to comply to your attitude.

On a larger scale the government has no right to tell a women what she can do with her body. /thread. Idc about how human the baby is, it doesnt have rights that supercede a womens right to her own body.

#608
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts

Master your desires. Tons of people do it. People should never act solely on their appetites, especially when doing so could, as many pro-choice people in this thread hint at, ruin your life.

Yeah you're right, the middle path between reason and emotion mind is a good way to minimize suffering, don't always give in to appetites. But even if you do that to the extent that anyone should be expected, that's still a lot of sex and a lot of opportunities for unwanted pregnancies.

A woman is not always fertile. You can have sex without creating a child. The problem (that seems like it will never be solved, unfortunately) is that people feel they must have sex, even before they're ready to raise a child.

Oh. My. God. Are we seriously back to this natural planning [cabbage]? I already answered that in this post. And as for the second part, our society is different from what it used to be. People got pregnant and started a family much earlier in the past, usually right when they reached sexual maturity. Now we put that off to get an education and establish a career before building a family, and in general that's been a positive change for society.

I look at that hierarchy (knew it'd be brought up) and I see those primary needs. Each one, if ignored for a lifetime, would result in death; each one except sex. Why do you think sex is a primary need? Is it because of the pleasure we get from it, or because we need it to keep the human race alive? Your food example does not apply, because food, regardless if you're hungry or not, still gives your body nutrients. You do not separate the act of gaining nutrients from the pleasure of eating something by eating it with the mindset that, "Hey, I'm not hungry, but this tastes good, so I'll eat it." The pleasure of eating it is still coupled with some sort of nutrient gain. It should be the same with sex: you can have sex for the pleasure, but you shouldn't separate this pleasure wholly from what sex is for in the first place.


Not all food gives the body vital nutrients, a lot of it is eaten purely for the recreation of it. And a lot of time that kind of food comes with negative consequences, so guess what? If I want to avoid those consequences, I do something about it like exercise; I must admit this metaphor is becoming a bit stretched though. Some evidence that sex is indeed a human need might be that NASA must consider the sexual needs of their astronauts in long-term space travel for one thing:

Humans have needs, and although the astronauts selected by NASA, ESA and the other international space agencies are highly professional individuals, Dr Jason Kring, a NASA advisor and assistant professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida, has pointed out that sexual desire is as potent as the need for water and food. “But the bottom line is that, like hunger and thirst, sex is a basic biological motive,” he said in an interview with the UK’s Sunday Telegraph. “The potential round-trip mission to Mars could take three years. It doesn't make sense to assume that these men and women are going to have no thoughts of it for three years. Nasa and other space agencies should address this in their training and in crew selection.” Kring suggests our future long-term space explorers should replicate what the early polar explorers did and take a colleague as a lover to minimize sexual frustration.

@Randox, I agree with you. I just find abortion and birth control, even though their damage control 'things', as giving more people a reason to have sex without being ready for a child. They have a 'way out', so to speak. I see them as doing more damage then help at this point.

I know it won't change anytime soon. And that sucks. :\

Sex is a constant in human society, no matter how much it is controlled, endorsed, or discouraged. And seriously, birth control has been a wonderful thing, it has allowed women to control their sexual lives in a similar manner to men. For centuries women have been basically unable to control their lives because pregnancy was always a risk, and now they are a vital and healthy part of our economy, government, and society. Oh, and another point. Even if abortion is illegal, women will try to get one even at the risk of their own lives. 70,000 women die every year from unsafe and illegal abortions, and that kills the fetus as well as the mother. People will always try to find a way out, and making that way out safer and better will only decrease the amount of lives lost; so if you're really pro-life and not just pro-women-suffering abortion would be better off legal.

For another example of why premarital sex is a constant in society, and always will be, here's another example:
Everyday Life in the 1800s" by Marc McCuctcheon, Chapter 10 Courtship and Marriage, page 205:

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#609
Randox
[ Display Name History ]

Randox

    The Consultant

  • Administrators
  • 6,605 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:21 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired
  • RSN:Randox
  • Clan:All Friendly
I'll agree that birth control and abortion do make having sex before your ready easier, because you know there is a way out. That is a legitimate problem.

I guess the way I see it though, that's going to happen anyway, and the damage done by ignoring a problem because it shouldn't exist is almost certain to be a lot more then doing something to solve a problem that shouldn't exist.


And to the women not always being fertile thing, women can ovulate I think as early as day 3 in the cycle, and as late as day 22. So while the window of opportunity itself is about 7 days (considering egg viability time and how long the sperm can survive, which is 2 days + 5 days), unless you actually know when you ovulate, its still a crapshot. The days not covered in that range aren't exactly prime sex days.

And just to be extra fun, while ovulation tends to be pretty consistent, its not impossible for it to be delayed, because the universe obviously doesn't want us to be 100% certain about this without inventing a little machine to go in there and check to see if the egg is out yet (that actually sounds kinda cool. Someone invent that).

#610
Zierro
[ Display Name History ]

Zierro

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A peninsula
  • Joined:24 August 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None

People will always try to find a way out, and making that way out safer and better will only decrease the amount of lives lost; so if you're really pro-life and not just pro-women-suffering abortion would be better off legal.


This is more or less what my opinion revolves around. While aborting may be a highly questionable practice in many cases, there's no way around the fact that people will still do it, just as they do with drugs and guns. Putting bans on activities like these seems to sprout more problems than it alleviates.

Not to mention, we shouldn't prohibit women who have been raped, have medical complications that could result in both the death of the baby and herself, and other circumstances that don't fall under the excuse of irresponsible laziness from being able to continue their lives normally.

And lol at sex being a need of equal magnitude to eating. It's a strong innate drive, but that's certainly not a well-founded moral justification for anything.

#611
Randox
[ Display Name History ]

Randox

    The Consultant

  • Administrators
  • 6,605 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:21 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired
  • RSN:Randox
  • Clan:All Friendly
The sex being as important as say eating is an interesting idea. On the level of the individual, I'd say its total BS. Being abstinent won't kill you. On the level of the species though, it is easily as important as anything that contributes to survival, as it ensures the survival of the species as a whole.

But I think the argument shouldn't just be about what is right, because the wrong thing is going to happen a lot no matter what laws you put in place. The solutions need to be the best to deal with problems that you do have, not just the ones you should have.

#612
sees_all1
[ Display Name History ]

sees_all1

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,961 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:26 June 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None

On the level of the species though, it is easily as important as anything that contributes to survival, as it ensures the survival of the species as a whole.

This view is out of place in the point that was trying to be made supporting abortion.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪


#613
Giordano
[ Display Name History ]

Giordano

    Troll General

  • Members
  • 11,438 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fontana, California
  • Joined:18 December 2005
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
  • RSN:Pasta Cheif
  • Clan:Chef Films
Not to mention, the human race isn't in danger of extinction any time soon.

So everybody shut up about sex = survival. :roll:
"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."
Posted Image

#614
aspeeder
[ Display Name History ]

aspeeder

    Retired Crew

  • Members
  • 3,083 posts


We are debating this in a philosophical sense, or at least I am, because we're debating what characteristics are needed to give a human full rights. Anyway I've stated what I said is needed to make something a full person, what's your scientific definition?

A person, by definition, is a human being. Once a being is characterized as human (scientifically speaking and under normal circumstances, when a human sperm cell fertilizes a human egg cell), it deserves all the respect and all the rights that every person should have.

Faith in Hiding:

Is There a Secular Case for Banning Abortion?
Article Ahead

Source, including links and sources used.

Also I'm aware that this style of just posting articles proves grating for some, it's the way I learned to argue in policy debate. Not that I couldn't digest this article and paraphrase it, but I consider the words of a published scholar to have more potency than my own.

Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png


#615
magekillr
[ Display Name History ]

magekillr

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,536 posts
  • Joined:19 June 2004
"They're just concerned with abortion, guys! It's not about birth control at all. We're not misogynists!"

That’s partly because the Personhood movement hopes to do nothing less than reclassify everyday, routine birth control as abortion. The medical definition of pregnancy is when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterine wall. If this initiative passes, and fertilized eggs on their own have full legal rights, anything that could potentially block that implantation – something a woman’s body does naturally all the time – could be considered murder. Scientists say hormonal birth-control pills and the morning-after pill work primarily by preventing fertilization in the first place, but the outside possibility, never documented, that an egg could be fertilized anyway and blocked is enough for some pro-lifers.

Indeed, at least one pro-Personhood doctor in Mississippi, Beverly McMillan, refused to prescribe the pill before retiring last year, writing, “I painfully agree that birth control pills do in fact cause abortions.” Bush does prescribe the pill, but says, “There’s good science on both sides … I think there’s more science to support conception not occurring.” Given that the Personhood Amendment is so vague, I asked her, what would stop the alleged “good science” on one side from prevailing and banning even the pill?

Bush paused. “I could say that is not the intent,” she said. “I don’t have an answer for that particular [case], how it would be settled, but I do know this is simple.” Which part is simple? “The amendment is simple,” she said. “You can play the ‘what if’ game, but if you keep it simple, this is a person who deserves life.” What about the IUD, which she refuses to prescribe for moral reasons, and which McMillan told me the Personhood Amendment would ban? “I’m not the authority on what would and would not be banned.” No – Bush simply plays one on TV. And if her amendment passes, only condoms, diaphragms and natural family planning — the rhythm method – would be guaranteed in Mississippi.

Bush also says in the commercial that the amendment wouldn’t “criminalize mothers and investigate them when they have miscarriages.” And yet if the willful destruction of an embryo is a murder, then that makes a miscarried woman’s body a potential crime scene or child welfare investigation. What about women whose miscarriages were suspected to be deliberate or due to their own negligence? One Personhood opponent, Michele Johansen, told me she wondered whether she could have been investigated for miscarrying a wanted, five-week pregnancy, because she rode a roller coaster. (Her doctor ultimately told her they were unrelated.)

The boilerplate Personhood response, echoed by both McMillan and Bush, is that no woman was prosecuted for miscarriage before Roe v. Wade, so why start now? Of course, there was no Personhood amendment at the time, nor much knowledge of embryonic development. And in countries with absolute abortion bans, like El Salvador, women are regularly investigated and jailed when found to have induced miscarriages.


The next front in the abortion wars: Birth control

Also see Jezebel: Mississippi Personhood Advocates Are Extra Scary in Person

It's also worth mentioning -- as the link does -- that "the number of babies who die as infants in Mississippi is double the number of abortions annually. It also has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy nationwide, alongside a child welfare system that remains dangerously broken." If they really cared about babies, all their energy would be spent correcting that abysmal infant mortality rate. But they don’t.

#616
IGoddessI
[ Display Name History ]

IGoddessI

    Black Knight Trainer

  • Members
  • 3,401 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Brisbane Aus
  • Joined:2 July 2004
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
  • RSN:I_AngeI_I
I can't remember if I posted in this thread somewhere but I'll comment again anyway. I don't have the energy to go read sources and what not and present some wonderful argument but here is the gist: My personal choice is to never abort. I take full responsibility of my actions and will rise to the responsibility. The only time I would abort is if I were raped. However, I'm smart enough to take the morning after pill so I wouldn't be pregnant anyway. Though, the pill is not always reliable, especially when taken with some medications. I prefer if other women didn't abort but it is not my body and not my choice. I am anti abortion, other than rape but I am also pro choice. I choose to live my beliefs and let others live theirs.
Posted Image

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

#617
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom
Thought I'd revive this with a bit of new info.

http://en.wikipedia....ortion_on_Crime

If you're too lazy, it's basically a study that showed legal abortion reduces crime rates starting about 16-20 years after. Anti-abortionists have any thoughts?
PM me for fitocracy invite

#618
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
I'm sure murdering anyone convicted of a crime would lower crime rates too, that doesn't make it right.

My stance on this is quite clear and I've made it so repeatedly - I don't know what you hope to gain by throwing more and more hypothetical situations and irrelevant data at this.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#619
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom
I just wondered if anyone would be willing to put aside their... morals I guess, for the benefit of their country.
PM me for fitocracy invite

#620
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

I just wondered if anyone would be willing to put aside their... morals I guess, for the benefit of their country.


Would you be?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users