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

[dalegg 143]

I have tried on this forum to see if some people would change there mind

You didn't really have any real hopes did you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Yes I know you support adoption - God knows I know that you support adoption

The problem here is that you pig-headedly refuse to see that adoption is only one part of the picture and that it isn't the appropriate solution for every individual and when questioned on it you go off on sexist rants about women not keeping their legs together and how they should "face the consequences" if they get pregnant after casual sex. It's like you crawled out of some barbarian fundamentalist religious state.

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

Yes it does indeed hold water - you just haven't thought about in a practical way.

[Danno 1,228]

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.

Well sure...

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

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.

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

It's no use debating with folks who see a used condom as equal to a developing baby with it's own DNA.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's no use debating with folks who see a used condom as equal to a developing baby with it's own DNA.

I think you haven't read the thread there Danno.

The question centres around Simpson's attitude that "dam women" should be punished for having sex - if it results in an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy by having the baby.

He then said that women who do not want this to happen should not have sex. Therefore if people do choose to have sex but use contraceptives why is he not similarly disparaging of that?

Edited July 5, 2011 by fishdude

[Fandango 1,440]

I think you haven't read the thread there Danno.

The question centres around Simpson's attitude that "dam women" should be punished for having sex - if it results in an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy by having the baby.

He then said that women who do not want this to happen should not have sex. Therefore if people do choose to have sex but use contraceptives why is he not similarly disparaging of that?

with a pregnancy, there is a child that needs killing, obviously

with contraception, there is no life created.

_____

I see the word 'punishment' thrown around a lot. It is not a 'punishment' to wind up pregnant. But there are consequences to actions. Such is life.

I see where Danno's coming from - yes, one can certainly go get an abortion if she winds up pregnant. But it is the selfish thing to do IMO if it's based out of inconvenience ie - career, money, timing. I won't tell someone she doesn't have the right to do so, but that doesn't stop me from having that opinion either. The convenience aspect is one which makes me cringe - it is a life that is being killed, simply because it is being seen as a 'punishment' or an inconvenience/nuisance. These are the risks we take when we have sex. If you don't want to ever get pregnant, either get sterilized, use serious protection, or don't have sex. There are lots of people who use no conception at all, then wind up pregnant and are surprised. Ummm, hello?

eta: It's not just the woman though, the man is equally culpable.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Anita Cocktail

[SMR 368]

Of course its valid. Forcing someone to go through a body changing pregnancy just so they can adopt the baby out? That might be an option for some but i doubt everyone would want to do it. The issue ultimately is one of choice. You can't easily put the rights of a fetus in the womb above those of the individual undergoing the pregnancy, not without subjecting adults to a form of biological slavery.

I agree its a complex issue. But you also can't put the rights of pregnant woman above the rights of the unborn child without subjecting the unborn child to murder.

Sure, you can go on about whether or not it is really alive. But you have a disagreement about basic human rights and whose take precedent. Simply stating that you can't violate those of the pregnant woman gets you nowhere. You have to consider that their are conflicting claims on human rights and someone is going to be violated.

[Fandango 1,440]

with a pregnancy, there is a child that needs killing, obviously

with contraception, there is no life created.

_____

I see the word 'punishment' thrown around a lot. It is not a 'punishment' to wind up pregnant. But there are consequences to actions. Such is life.

I see where Danno's coming from - yes, one can certainly go get an abortion if she winds up pregnant. But it is the selfish thing to do IMO if it's based out of inconvenience ie - career, money, timing. I won't tell someone she doesn't have the right to do so, but that doesn't stop me from having that opinion either. The convenience aspect is one which makes me cringe - it is a life that is being killed, simply because it is being seen as a 'punishment' or an inconvenience/nuisance. These are the risks we take when we have sex. If you don't want to ever get pregnant, either get sterilized, use serious protection, or don't have sex. There are lots of people who use no conception at all, then wind up pregnant and are surprised. Ummm, hello?

eta: It's not just the woman though, the man is equally culpable.

Sorry, *Simpson* not Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree its a complex issue. But you also can't put the rights of pregnant woman above the rights of the unborn child without subjecting the unborn child to murder.

Sure, you can go on about whether or not it is really alive. But you have a disagreement about basic human rights and whose take precedent. Simply stating that you can't violate those of the pregnant woman gets you nowhere. You have to consider that their are conflicting claims on human rights and someone is going to be violated.

I'm sorry - but that there is total rubbish.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

with a pregnancy, there is a child that needs killing, obviously

with contraception, there is no life created.

Well obviously.

I see the word 'punishment' thrown around a lot. It is not a 'punishment' to wind up pregnant. But there are consequences to actions. Such is life.

I see where Danno's coming from - yes, one can certainly go get an abortion if she winds up pregnant. But it is the selfish thing to do IMO if it's based out of inconvenience ie - career, money, timing. I won't tell someone she doesn't have the right to do so, but that doesn't stop me from having that opinion either. The convenience aspect is one which makes me cringe - it is a life that is being killed, simply because it is being seen as a 'punishment' or an inconvenience/nuisance. These are the risks we take when we have sex. If you don't want to ever get pregnant, either get sterilized, use serious protection, or don't have sex. There are lots of people who use no conception at all, then wind up pregnant and are surprised. Ummm, hello?

eta: It's not just the woman though, the man is equally culpable.

I said punishment - because it was presented as such. Simpson seems to believe that if a woman has sex and gets pregnant (regardless of any precautions taken to prevent it) that she must accept the consequences by carrying the pregnancy to term, whether she wants to or not (presumably backed up by the force of criminal law). That about sums up his position. That's more than privately disapproving of someone's lifestyle and behaviour... The comments the guy put out in this thread suggest he's got some very puritanical and sexist attitudes towards sex.

Edited July 5, 2011 by fishdude

[Fandango 1,440]

Well obviously.

I said punishment - because it was presented as such. Simpson seems to believe that if a woman has sex and gets pregnant (regardless of any precautions taken to prevent it) that she must accept the consequences by carrying the pregnancy to term, whether she wants to or not (presumably backed up by the force of criminal law). That about sums up his position. That's more than privately disapproving of someone's lifestyle and behaviour... The comments the guy put out in this thread suggest he's got some very puritanical and sexist attitudes towards sex.

I agree.

There is no consequence free action, even sex. If one wants to never ever have that consequence, there are surgeries to remedy that. Oh wait, they shouldn't have to do that? They should be able to have sex, not use protection, get pregnant, and kill the child just because it's inconvenient?

Killing an unborn child isn't convenient. I think a better option would be adoption.

I have not taken a stance on abortion law because I am not prepared to do so. Morally, I think abortion is wrong. But I am not prepared to support legislation banning it, no matter how wrong I think it is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It might be a better option for some, it isn't for all (teenagers, for example). Hence all options should be available for people to make the decision that is best for them and for their circumstances. The issue isn't the availability of abortion or the abuse of it - what surely is more important is that people have the information to make the best decision for them.

It's a bigger issue than simply wagging a finger at someone because they had sex without protection.

[Fandango 1,440]

It might be a better option for some, it isn't for all (teenagers, for example). Hence all options should be available for people to make the decision that is best for them and for their circumstances. The issue isn't the availability of abortion or the abuse of it - what surely is more important is that people have the information to make the best decision for them.

It's a bigger issue than simply wagging a finger at someone because they had sex without protection.

The way I read his opinion, t's not condemning someone for having sex, it's being too quick to choose abortion over adoption merely because it's less hassle (going off your posts here)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What would he know about the reasons someone might prefer to choose abortion over adoption? What would he know about the thought (or lack thereof) that went into an individual's decision to abort?

[_Simpson_ 250]

You didn't really have any real hopes did you?

"You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one"

It's no use debating with folks who see a used condom as equal to a developing baby with it's own DNA.

eta: It's not just the woman though, the man is equally culpable.

I totally agree. I say wrap it before you tap it or tie the dam thing in a knot but dont come crying to me when Mrs Right Now gets pregnant because you got drunk and horny and thought contraception were overrated.

There is no consequence free action, even sex. If one wants to never ever have that consequence, there are surgeries to remedy that. Oh wait, they shouldn't have to do that? They should be able to have sex, not use protection, get pregnant, and kill the child just because it's inconvenient?

Well put.

It might be a better option for some, it isn't for all (teenagers, for example). Hence all options should be available for people to make the decision that is best for them and for their circumstances. The issue isn't the availability of abortion or the abuse of it - what surely is more important is that people have the information to make the best decision for them.

It's a bigger issue than simply wagging a finger at someone because they had sex without protection.

There you go again, "for them" When you bring another life into the equation then it becomes much more than just a woman's right issue.

Edited July 5, 2011 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a consideration, for the woman, but it's still ultimately it's her tight to choose what is best for her and her situation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with you.