Polish lawmakers move closer to banning abortions altogether, even for women who were raped, are carrying deformed babies or face health risks.

[웃 910]

It's stupid. Call it what it is.

QFT

[faust-yusov 103]

Let me make this easy for you. The woman makes the final decision. So if your going to spread your legs and then throw your mistake away then I would say please keep you dam legs closed you selfish woman you.

I presume then that you are as vehemently opposed to contraception?

[_Simpson_ 250]

I presume then that you are as vehemently opposed to contraception?

of course not but go on

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I presume then that you are as vehemently opposed to contraception?

What he's against is what happens when the contraception fails - something along the lines of "That damned woman should have kept her legs shut!", "That's what you get for putting it about"

[_Simpson_ 250]

What he's against is what happens when the contraception fails - something along the lines of "That damned woman should have kept her legs shut!", "That's what you get for putting it about"

Did we or didn't we already have the discussion about making laws based on the exception to the rule.

Edited July 5, 2011 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did we or didn't we already have the discussion about making laws based on the exception to the rule.

That IS your stance on the matter.

Take precautions + get pregnant anyway = No abortion for you. You should have kept your legs together woman.

[faust-yusov 103]

of course not but go on

Considering your position on this is entirely deterministic, I would have assumed you would likewise abhor abortive procedures at the point of conception.

Edited July 5, 2011 by faust-yusov

[_Simpson_ 250]

That IS your stance on the matter.

Take precautions + get pregnant anyway = No abortion for you. You should have kept your legs together woman.

You know exactly where I stand on this issue so why do you insist on trying to dumb it down like this.

A woman willingly having sex knows dam well that she could get pregnant. My position is that if she doesnt want to take the chance then DONT HAVE SEX. The baby shouldn't be punished for her having sex, I hate IT when woman make it all about themselves, how selfish.

If you use contraceptives odds are in your favor but nevertheless like getting in a car there can be unintended consequences.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Considering your position on this is entirely deterministic, I would have assumed you would likewise abhor abortive procedures at the point of conception.

Woman need to take responsibility. The baby should not have to pay the price.

[faust-yusov 103]

The baby shouldn't be punished for her having sex

Again, I inquire as to why you do not reserve comparable vitriol for contraceptive use.

The "punishment" is not existing, and is exacted equally by prophylactics as it is abortion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know exactly where I stand on this issue so why do you insist on trying to dumb it down like this.

A woman willingly having sex knows dam well that she could get pregnant. My position is that if she doesnt want to take the chance then DONT HAVE SEX. The baby shouldn't be punished for her having sex, I hate IT when woman make it all about themselves, how selfish.

If you use contraceptives odds are in your favor but nevertheless like getting in a car there can be unintended consequences.

Dumb it down? It IS dumb Simpson.

People have to have ownership of their own bodies - regardless of what you personally feel about it.

People have sex for pleasure, Simpson and have done so for thousands of years, get over it. If a woman doesn't want or isn't ready for a baby, she doesn't have to have one. And you shouldn't have any say whatsoever in changing that.

Woman need to take responsibility. The baby should not have to pay the price.

Having an abortion is a way of taking responsibility.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Again, I inquire as to why you do not reserve comparable vitriol for contraceptive use.

The "punishment" is not existing, and is exacted equally by prophylactics as it is abortion.

Who talks like this??? What is it you want to know?

Dumb it down? It IS dumb Simpson.

People have to have ownership of their own bodies - regardless of what you personally feel about it.

Yes they do, now when are we going to start doing that? You know were never going to see eye to eye as long as you believe that the baby has no real moral significance.

People have sex for pleasure, Simpson and have done so for thousands of years, get over it. If a woman doesn't want or isn't ready for a baby, she doesn't have to have one. And you shouldn't have any say whatsoever in changing that.

Nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure. You clearly don't understand my point do you. You bring another life into this world you need to buck up and treat it like a life and not just throw it away. Once again...how selfish.

Having an abortion is a way of taking responsibility.

Its a selfish one-sided solution.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who talks like this??? What is it you want to know?

He wants to know what you see as the differences between contraception and abortion - given that pregnancy is a consequence of having sex.

Yes they do, now when are we going to start doing that? You know were never going to see eye to eye as long as you believe that the baby has no real moral significance.

But you agree that people have to have ownership over their own bodies. Fine, then a woman can pursue an abortion should she choose to do so.

Nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure. You clearly don't understand my point do you. You bring another life into this world you need to buck up and treat it like a life and not just throw it away. Once again...how selfish.

Its a selfish one-sided solution.

It only appears that way to you because you are fixated on women going through with unwanted pregnancies as the only solution that is not in your view "selfish" or "irresponsible". That is pretty short-sighted.

The fact is, deciding to keep or abort a pregnancy is an individual decisions made for a variety of reasons - some good, some not so good. Sometimes having the baby is selfish and irresponsible, sometimes it isn't. The problem with people who want women punished with fines and jail for aborting pregnancies is that there is simply no reasonable way of preventing it, since the law is a clumsy, repressive and ultimately flawed tool for doing so. What you can reasonably do is ensure that individuals have access to the information and support that they need to make decisions that are clearly thought out and in their own best interests.

[faust-yusov 103]

Who talks like this??? What is it you want to know?

Haughty moral judgment requires a degree of consistency, I'm afraid.

You believe it selfish that a woman should have sex for pleasure and "punish" the "baby". The "punishment" (and correct me if you believe I'm misstating this) is, merely, "not existing".

You ought to understand that this existential determinism applies at any point in the process post-penetration, and that any measures taken to prevent the prospective life from existing (e.g. contraception; abortion) can therefore be viewed as "punishing the baby".

You have yet to argue why you believe a distinction should be made between said measures.

Edited July 5, 2011 by faust-yusov

[_Simpson_ 250]

It only appears that way to you because you are fixated on women going through with unwanted pregnancies as the only solution that is not in your view "selfish" or "irresponsible". That is pretty short-sighted.

The fact is, deciding to keep or abort a pregnancy is an individual decisions made for a variety of reasons - some good, some not so good. Sometimes having the baby is selfish and irresponsible, sometimes it isn't. The problem with people who want women punished with fines and jail for aborting pregnancies is that there is simply no reasonable way of preventing it, since the law is a clumsy, repressive and ultimately flawed tool for doing so. What you can reasonably do is ensure that individuals have access to the information and support that they need to make decisions that are clearly thought out and in their own best interests.

Keeping a baby after birth could be considered selfish and irresponsible. Thats why I strongly support adoption.

"no way to prevent it" does not hold water. One could say that just about anything and yet we still force our laws.

Haughty moral judgment requires a degree of consistency, I'm afraid.

Well sure...

You believe it selfish that a woman should have sex for pleasure and "punish" the "baby". The "punishment" (and correct me if you believe I'm misstating this) is, merely, "not existing"

The lack of quotes around baby in my post best describes the fundamental disagreement that exists.

You ought to understand that this existential determinism applies at any point in the process post-penetration, and that any measures taken to prevent the prospective life from existing (e.g. contraception; abortion) can therefore be viewed as "punishing the baby".

Are you under the impression that I have no give on this subject. I have tried on this forum to see if some people would change there mind in areas of when it would be acceptable and when it wouldnt if for example if we could figure out when a baby is capable of feeling pain. No give.

You have yet to argue why you believe a distinction should be made between said measures.

Not in this thread but in other yes I have. You have yet to ask and only assume.

Edited July 5, 2011 by _Simpson_