Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:16 am
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm Posts: 2932
malice wrote:
I always figured it's just an expression of male desire to control female ability to give birth. If they can't do it themselves they sure as hell aren't going to want women to have any control over the child-bearing process.
Well, this is the reason that most of the first-wave feminists were opposed to abortion. Dutiful sex was often followed by the husbands demand for an abortion - let's not forget that spousal rape was ignored by the law until the 20th century (still is in some countries).
Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion, after all (how's that for irony).
_________________ For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there but I wouldn't hold my breath
Last edited by Man in Black on Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:06 pm
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:40 am Posts: 2114 Location: Coventry
EllisEamos wrote:
Hallucination wrote:
Why is it that every forum this story goes on, the thread gets derailed into a thread about abortion?
um, something something the title of this thread something something.
I know but it's really about killing babies outside of the womb. I understand it's about the comparison, but the comparison seems to be lost.
_________________ "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them" -Karl Popper
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:21 pm
Supersonic
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am Posts: 10694
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
I always figured it's just an expression of male desire to control female ability to give birth. If they can't do it themselves they sure as hell aren't going to want women to have any control over the child-bearing process.
Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion, after all (how's that for irony).
Come again? She was a eugenicist. She believed in any and all methods to be utilized to limit the population of undesirables.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:09 pm
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:40 am Posts: 2114 Location: Coventry
EllisEamos wrote:
Hallucination wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
Hallucination wrote:
Why is it that every forum this story goes on, the thread gets derailed into a thread about abortion?
um, something something the title of this thread something something.
I know but it's really about killing babies outside of the womb. I understand it's about the comparison, but the comparison seems to be lost.
do you mean: something something fetus ≠ baby something something.
I mean people are debating abortion. No-one seems to be talking away from abortion.
_________________ "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them" -Karl Popper
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:49 pm
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:40 am Posts: 2114 Location: Coventry
EllisEamos wrote:
Hallucination wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
Hallucination wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
Hallucination wrote:
Why is it that every forum this story goes on, the thread gets derailed into a thread about abortion?
um, something something the title of this thread something something.
I know but it's really about killing babies outside of the womb. I understand it's about the comparison, but the comparison seems to be lost.
do you mean: something something fetus ≠ baby something something.
I mean people are debating abortion. No-one seems to be talking away from abortion.
what do you think of cats (the musical), Hal?
I see what you did there. But the article isn't about a comparison between abortion and cats. To answer, never seen it.
_________________ "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them" -Karl Popper
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:23 am
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm Posts: 2932
LittleWing wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
I always figured it's just an expression of male desire to control female ability to give birth. If they can't do it themselves they sure as hell aren't going to want women to have any control over the child-bearing process.
Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion, after all (how's that for irony).
Come again? She was a eugenicist. She believed in any and all methods to be utilized to limit the population of undesirables.
Well, she certainly was an interesting case. She was a eugenicist, and something of a compassionate racist, it appears...but she was definitely opposed to abortion.
From her autobiography
"[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
So there you have it people, the founder of Planned Parenthood was opposed to abortion.
_________________ For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there but I wouldn't hold my breath
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:22 pm
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Man in Black wrote:
whatever he wrote
broken iris wrote:
whatever he wrote
anyone else wrote:
whatever they wrote
I'm not pro-abortion. And in fact, should you care to ask any other militant, radical, lesbian, neo-fascist feminist (or however you guys want to label me, regardless of the fact that I am none of these things), I'm guessing you'd get the same response - I don't know anyone who is 'pro-abortion' -and the misnomer is insulting at the least, and socially manipulative at the worst. And AGAIN- this missed my point completely: I don’t want women indiscriminately running to the local abortion shop to get rid of yet another inconvenience that will disrupt their otherwise selfish and materialist whims in order to not be burdened with having to carry, give birth to and raise an unwanted baby. I want women to be afforded the freedom to decide how and when they will or will not have children without being thrown in prison for murder and without being forced and legally bound by the government to grow a baby inside of them. I will state AGAIN – this is an issue of personal morality. That’s why it’s referred to as pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Similarly- this idea of “Pro-Life” is a socially manipulative term created in order to shine a favorable light on people who are anti-choice, and build a base of like minded people who can wield enough support to hide the fact that this is all about power and domination. You know- like the Catholic Church… Who if any of you scholarly folks know anything about at all, will agree that this idea of no contraception, no abortions came out of the Church’s desire to create as many followers as possible- this meant Catholic women having babies. Lots and Lots of babies that were then raised as Catholics that never questions doctrine, never goes against the wishes of their priests, never goes against the wishes of her husband (who is, of course a woman’s master, not just her mate) and continues to enlarge population that the Church is able to control…
you guys find a way to nurture and grow the cells that begin a life outside of me – I’m all for it- take the cells out my fucking uterus, hook it up to some baby making machine you invent, deliver it without risk to me or anyone else, and ensure that it will be raised well enough to grow into a positively contributing member of the society – or go figure out how to carry and deliver and pregnancy to term yourselves, either way- I’ll happily agree to no abortions ever again. Otherwise- shut the fuck up about my gender’s responsibilities and decisions. MIB- There’s no irony in the founder of Planned Parenthood being opposed to abortion- Planned Parenthood encourages education in sexuality and contraceptives and the use of contraceptives as the best way to help prevent unwanted pregnancy. You state it yourself in your other post quoting her. And to address Broken Iris’s accusation that I’m all about Mommy and screw Daddy- I’d like to know just how enthusiastic you and/or your friends have ever been after receiving a phone call from the girl you screwed a few months ago after getting loaded at the bar, telling you she’s pregnant and she’s sure it’s yours? (Hypothesize if you haven’t ever been in the situation yourself) How many of you have responded to similar with the idea - oh no! I REALLY HOPE she doesn’t get an abortion- I REALLY WANT TO RAISE THAT KID! I NEED TO HAVE THAT BABY!!!! srsly? You think this is how men would behave? I don’t. And I resent the fact that you choose to boil down what I have to say to something so shallow and one-dimensional as ‘all about the Mommy and her selfish desires, and screw the Daddy and his altruistic leanings’ – Between you and me, I’m thinking this shows you as having some psychological problem with women rather than me having a problem with men if that’s what you get out my statements, son.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum