Yupa Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 I doubt rich male counterparts taking off without the government forcing child support is that large of a percentage the woman's life is not second best, but the fetus has no power and is completely innocent as for vasectomy (not bothering with the FLO stuff here) - killing the possibility of a fetus and killing a fetus itself are two very different things
MonteZuma Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 Hi S-*BAD WORD*-.... monte, i don't think the us CAN educate anymore about safe sex and make people more aware. from the time I was 10 years old, it was taught every year of public school, but we still had girls getting pregnant. Guys are too lazy to buy condoms, don't wanna use them, girls let them continue with their lame excuses, oops they got pregnant, BAM want an abortion. Except maybe in private schools, where they can teach what they want, I don't know ANYONE who wasn't taught all about safe sex, making wise decisions, and the risks of unsafe sex, including STD's and pregnancy. Yeah...Good point. But maybe the problem is that the conventional forms of education and awareness aren't effective? I suspect that the people who are falling pregnant are people who kinda fall through the net. You know....the kids who just don't pay attention at school. Maybe kids with low self-esteem or something. Kids that just don't care - for whatever reason. We need to provide those kids with a reason to care.... I don't know how, aside from the obvious motherhood things like tackiling poverty and abuse in the home and stuff like that. More personalised care in schools maybe...All of this sort of stuff might seem a far stretch from teen abortion, but I don't think so. Teenage pregnancy (in many or most cases) is a symptom of social dysfunction. I personally would rather see someone have an abortion than raise a child they don't want. It's not fair to bring a kid into the world who has parent's that don't care for him.....Well I tend to agree, but I can also see the argument from the other side - aborting a life is somewhat distasteful - no matter what stage of development. Its very much a philosophical question. Monte
Yupa Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 I personally would rather see someone HAVE A LITTLE MOTHER-*BAD WORD*-ING RESPONSIBILITY than CONCEIVE a child they don't want.
MonteZuma Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 ...Marquis came to the conclusion that murder is wrong because it denys a victim a Future Life like Ours (FLO). He then came to the conclusion that since fetus's have a FLO, that abortion is immoral under most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. Exceptions include cases of rape, and less than two weeks from conception.If we subscribe to the FLO philosophy, then why is there a 2 week limit, and why are there any exceptions at all? Every fetus potentially has a FLO? Does a baby conceived as a result of a rape have any less potential of a FLO than a re-*BAD WORD*-ed baby, or the baby of a 16yo girl, or a child destined to live in a single parent family, or a child whose parents are re-*BAD WORD*-ed? And.....Every soldier in a combat force has a FLO, but we deem it acceptable to kill soldiers in war? Many reformed prisoners on death row have a FLO. Sanctioned killing is a part of our society. And...Is it ok to kill people from different cultures because they dont have a FLO? They have a future life unlike ours. There are endless complicating factors. The FLO idea is full of holes. ...and so is every other 'rule of thumb' that anyone has ever applied to abortion. Where do you draw the line on any of this stuff. The answer will never be clear cut. Monte.
MonteZuma Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 i see it from this perspective: human female is only capable of getting pregnant in 3 day that lives its ovulo, you add the 48-72 hours an espermatozoid lives and its 5-6 days of 1 full month, abortion is for stupid pplz!!!The world is populated by stupid people. Accidents happen. People take risks. It happens to ordinary people...
madhaha Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 Are you not contradicting yourself? You acknowledge there is a case for abortion in cases of rape etc. Also I'm sure you're aware that most forms of contraception are not 100% successful and pregnancy can go unnoticed for several weeks. Now you say its a law to protect stupid people. Or what are you saying?
MonteZuma Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 The rythm method isn't foolproof. Anyone who thinks a girl/woman must be stupid because of an unplanned pregnancy is a hypocrit. Well, either that or they don't believe in conventional recreational sex.
Yupa Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 The rythm method isn't foolproof. Anyone who thinks a girl/woman must be stupid because of an unplanned pregnancy is a hypocrit. Well, either that or they don't believe in conventional recreational sex. find me the statistics of girls that get pregnant while on the pill and using a condom and then I'll laugh in your face
MonteZuma Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 The rythm method isn't foolproof. Anyone who thinks a girl/woman must be stupid because of an unplanned pregnancy is a hypocrit. Well, either that or they don't believe in conventional recreational sex. find me the statistics of girls that get pregnant while on the pill and using a condom and then I'll laugh in your faceChrist. You read the PD text book at school and you think you are an expert on sexual health. Get out in the real world. Condoms have a 14% failure rate:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...3&dopt=Abstract In case you don't know what that means:"During a year of typical condom use, 14 out of 100 women will become pregnant. During a year of perfect condom use, that number drops to 3 out of 100 women becoming pregnant." http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html The pill has an 8% failure rate. I'd suspect that a lot of smart kids using the pill or condoms for the first time would get things pretty messed up. You do live in a perfect and unforgiving dreamworld Akai. Sad. Monte.
Yupa Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 yes, so sad, I can read directions bhahahaha
MonteZuma Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 "During a year of perfect condom use, that number drops to 3 out of 100 women becoming pregnant." Akai: Have you ever used a condom? Monte
MonteZuma Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 Do you giggle during PD class as well? Heh.
Darkflare Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 so if you used both, then the chances of getting pregnant is 8% of 14%...which is 1.12%
Aileron Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 ...Marquis came to the conclusion that murder is wrong because it denys a victim a Future Life like Ours (FLO). He then came to the conclusion that since fetus's have a FLO, that abortion is immoral under most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. Exceptions include cases of rape, and less than two weeks from conception.If we subscribe to the FLO philosophy, then why is there a 2 week limit, and why are there any exceptions at all? Every fetus potentially has a FLO? Does a baby conceived as a result of a rape have any less potential of a FLO than a re-*BAD WORD*-ed baby, or the baby of a 16yo girl, or a child destined to live in a single parent family, or a child whose parents are re-*BAD WORD*-ed? And.....Every soldier in a combat force has a FLO, but we deem it acceptable to kill soldiers in war? Many reformed prisoners on death row have a FLO. Sanctioned killing is a part of our society. And...Is it ok to kill people from different cultures because they dont have a FLO? They have a future life unlike ours. There are endless complicating factors. The FLO idea is full of holes. ...and so is every other 'rule of thumb' that anyone has ever applied to abortion. Where do you draw the line on any of this stuff. The answer will never be clear cut. Monte.One note I haven't pointed out yet is that the FLO arguement requires that there be a creature. A potenial creature's FLO does not count. The two week period is scientific. It results from the possibility that the fetus could split to form twins during this time. Basically, since it is not definitely a creature, it doesn't count. The exception to cases of rape was a result of Judith Thompson's work. Basically, Thompson proved the mother's right to her body outweighs the fetus' rights if she did not give consent. As for a re-*BAD WORD*-ed baby, the 16 Y mother, and people from other cultures, these are merely setbacks in the child's life. Not all of us have fortunate lives. No two people will have the exact same life. Basically, with possible exception to the re-*BAD WORD*-ed child, all of them have an FLO, just not as fortunate as one. Yes, you are correct in that this leads to a question as to what must somebody's future life hold so that it no longer is an FLO. This leads to conflicts over euthanasia for example. You are also right in that it has the potential to cause difficulty to this rule. However, judging morality is never easy, so this doesn't disprove the thesis. However, the family not being suited for a child's birth is not enough to overide an FLO. Many people who have been born under single parents, young parents, etc. have had enough of a normal life that they can survive in society. Thus, while the line between unforunate future and no FLO is thin, those examples simply do not even come close to it. War and Capital Punishment are wrong by default. Both of those require justification which OVERIDES the FLO of the individuals killed. Basically, the FLO rights still exists, they are just overuled by cir-*BAD WORD*-stance.
Bacchus Posted November 10, 2003 Author Report Posted November 10, 2003 You're talking about life like it was a scientific experiment with measurable parameters... You can't just go on appraising life's weight in that way...this FLO thing might be more credible if we could foresee a human being life but since we cannot how can you manage to decide wether or not a "creature" have a future at all? anyway...i'm pro-choice and i think an anti-abortion law discreminate women's rights. ALthough abortion should off course be discouraged and women urged to reconsider the choice is ultimatly theirs to make (in a perfect world a father shoudl have something to say also but i saw too many cases of abuse...). I think that abortions could be adressed in a more social way. Anti-abortion is too coercitive and it's a law based on gender, hence it's stripping women from dignity (sovereignty of body). Granted, this law isn't universal yet (as in no abortion whatsoever), it's setting a limit...but that's for now...it's creating precedent. And precedents is what ethics are made/change on. In other words, it'S opening the door to more drastic measures.
Manus Celer Dei Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 I'm not going to contribute to this "debate" other than by saying I'm glad I live in a civilised country. On a side note I learned today that the US reserves the right to legally execute its children. NOT EVEN CHINA DOES THAT, OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!
MonteZuma Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 so if you used both, then the chances of getting pregnant is 8% of 14%...which is 1.12%The whole thing is, teenagers don't live in a perfect world. Especially teenagers in dysfunctional families or social groups. They are gonna stuff up. But anybody can make a mistake. Anybody who has sex that is.... Monte.
shellshock Posted November 10, 2003 Report Posted November 10, 2003 speaking of women's rights, what about the male's rights.... the woman is the one to decide whether or not (in the end) to keep or abort a child. her decision affects her partner for the rest of his life as well. in some ways, with current laws, the male has less rights than the female, because when it comes to adoption or abortion, the male can't make a final decision to give it up. if the female chooses to keep the child, the male is legally obligated to support the child for the next 18years (akai, i'm all about the responsibility thing too, but accidents and stupidity happen) speaking of rights, why should a person on government aid (welfare) be allowed to continue having children? why should taxpayers be forced to support her when she keeps having children she can't afford?
MonteZuma Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 ...why should a person on government aid (welfare) be allowed to continue having children? why should taxpayers be forced to support her when she keeps having children she can't afford?Yeah...That kind of thing sucks....but my view on this is that it is better for the govt to help raise the kids than any alternate option. Compulsory sterilisation or abortion or adoption? Forcing the children to live in absolute poverty? I don't see any reasonable way out of it? And yeah, I know that one of the reasons people probably have kids is to become a career welfare recipient....but what can ya do? The child's needs come first. I know that you aren't talking about legitimate needy people, but its prolly also worth mentioning that many people on welfare need help and shouldnt be denied the opportunity to have kids just because they are on welfare. Monte
Bueshtak Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 My mother works for the gov't in investigating welfare fruad, so I head stories about welfare families all the time. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I've heard a rant about a family that just pushes out child after child to get the extra welfare benifits. Granted, many many people on welfare actualy do need it, the number of people who are just taking advantage of the system is pathetic. With the laws and regulations that are in effect now, it drastically cuts down on being able to cut ppl off too.
Aileron Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 You're talking about life like it was a scientific experiment with measurable parameters...Do you have a better suggestion on how to deal with this issue? Frankly the only way that we can find out what is right in this issue is the scientific way. Doing what "feels right" not only is subjective but can lead to terrible probelms. Yes, trying to solve this problem in a scientifc way does seem cold and without respect for life. However, it takes emotion out of it, and I for one do not want an issue of life and death to be decided by emotion. You can't just go on appraising life's weight in that way...this FLO thing might be more credible if we could foresee a human being life but since we cannot how can you manage to decide wether or not a "creature" have a future at all?So you are saying that the FLO doesn't apply because we cannot predict future life. Suppose then, that I stabbed Akai in the chest so that I could get his mod position. By your reasoning, I could justify it by saying that it was okay because no one can predict Akai's future life. Heck, a piano could have fallen on his head a second later. However, the obvious flaw is that odds are that Akai would have been perfectly fine for several years. (Until Monte stabs him for his mod position. ) Thus, we could probably get away with making the !@#$%^&*umption that Akai has an FLO.
madhaha Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 I'm not going to contribute to this "debate" other than by saying I'm glad I live in a civilised country. On a side note I learned today that the US reserves the right to legally execute its children. NOT EVEN CHINA DOES THAT, OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! You forget that harsh enforcement of China's one child policy has lead to many non-consensual abortions (regardless of how long the term of pregnancy has been). Also note that while they do not reserve the legal right to kill children, they didn't have the legal right to send tanks into Tiananmen. So what?
MonteZuma Posted November 11, 2003 Report Posted November 11, 2003 You're talking about life like it was a scientific experiment with measurable parameters...Do you have a better suggestion on how to deal with this issue? Frankly the only way that we can find out what is right in this issue is the scientific way. Doing what "feels right" not only is subjective but can lead to terrible probelms.nah. There is no scientific solution to this problem. This one is gonna have to be thrashed out the hard way. Suppose then, that I stabbed Akai in the chest so that I could get his mod position.I personally would not have a problem with that. errrr j/k "p (Until Monte stabs him for his mod position. ) Monte
Recommended Posts