Abortion.What do you think about it?

spendius wrote:

As Frank says you have no right to tell a woman anything at all about these matters. They are for her. But she has to accept my further lack of sexual interest in her and that of many other men.

So she ends up with men who think of her as an object rather than as a divine being who can turn all sorts of diets into bouncing babies by a mysterious process which men are insanely jealous of and will seemingly do almost anything to belittle or try to share the credit for.

C'mon Spendi!

Get with the program here.

I have been with a couple of women who have had abortions...and I never think of any woman as an "object"...sex object or any other kind of "object."

I think of them as fellow human beings...worthy of respect...whether they have had an abortion or not. Having had an abortion does not, by fiat, turn a woman into a tramp or an object of dirision...except to someone who may have his mind closed tightly for some reason.

And I am not jealous of women because they can have babies...and in fact, am rather pleased that it is their burden to bear rather than ours. I do not "belittle" the process...and I think you have run out of reasonable ideas for suggesting so.

BOTTOM LINE: It is my opinion a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reasons she chooses...and nobody but she should have any say in the matter. And if there is an emotional price to pay...she pays it. It it means she will not share a bed with you...she should be able to continue living...albeit in a much less happy state.

0 Replies

Why should a woman live in a 'much less happy state' post to abortion?
This seems to assume all women are bound by judeo-christian moral trappings, which just isn't the case.

0 Replies

Maybe they're feeling badly doesn't have as much to do with Judeo-Christian anything, as much as that they had something alive and moving inside them that they had extracted, and that just naturally makes a person sad. I think that natural sadness may even be more pronounced the closer to term...

Some of the whole happy/unhappy thing after the fetus is gone is just hormonal, I'm sure - hence "post partum depression".

Only my opinion, of course. But I've not seen or heard of any woman this circumstance made happy.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The Supreme Court said it was THE issue [i.e., whether or not a foetus is a human being].

You keep peddling this horseshit, because that is a point on which YOU wish to focus. It has been pointed out to you that in the majority opinion, reference was made to litigants and amicii who were concerned with the "personhood" of a foetus--and that was not a topic introduced by any of the justices.

In the written decision, Section XI begins with this summary:

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.

It is clear that the Court is concerned in this decision with the extent to which a state may regulate the practice of abortion, at that at no time does the Court introduce the "personhood" of a foetus into the discussion. The Court only refers to the "viability" of a foetus, in reference to abortions subsequent to the second trimester.

It would be a good deal easier to discuss such matters if you didn't make things up.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Maybe they're feeling badly doesn't have as much to do with Judeo-Christian anything, as much as that they had something alive and moving inside them that they had extracted, and that just naturally makes a person sad. I think that natural sadness may even be more pronounced the closer to term...

Some of the whole happy/unhappy thing after the fetus is gone is just hormonal, I'm sure - hence "post partum depression".

Only my opinion, of course. But I've not seen or heard of any woman this circumstance made happy.

I seriously doubt ANY woman was ever made happy by having to have an abortion...and I would not be surprised if EVERY woman who has one regrets it in one way or another...and possibly pays an emotional price.

I've quit jobs where I had regrets...and paid an emotional price.

But I want the right to quit a job if I chose...and I don't want someone else to intrude their opinion about it...even if based on the fact that I may well have regrets or pay a price for the move.

MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more so...I want a woman to have the right to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body IF SHE CHOOSES...even if there are prices to pay for the move.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
The Supreme Court said it was THE issue

....... It has been pointed out to you that in the majority opinion, reference was made to litigants and amicii who were concerned with the "personhood" of a foetus--and that was not a topic introduced by any of the justices....

I didn't say the justices introduced the topic.

But the justices' opinion stated:

Quote:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

from http://www.roevswade.org/Decision.html

It could not be clearer.

The personhood of the fetus is THE issue (in the opinion of the court) that held the potential to furnish grounds for upholding the state abortion laws that then existed.

0 Replies

Further, it is noted that the justices distanced themselves from the more rabid pro-abortion sentiments of our day by stating:

Quote:

.......appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.

However, it would seem that some either are ignorant of the text of the decision, or at least they hope that everyone else is.

0 Replies

Frank-

Can't you see that I have never attempted to interfere with a woman's rights in this matter. She can have an abortion even if it is illegal.

Does making it legal leave her more vulnerable to pressurisation by others such as the father of the child or her parents or women who have had one themselves.

Are you trying to claim that by having an abortion she has not, to some extent, denatured herself and reduced her negotiating position.

I think you are simply trying to abdicate from the position that it is a man's responsibility to prevent conception in a woman who has granted him the privilege of making love to her. That she subsequently has an abortion proves she didn't wish the conception to take place and what is a man doing if he can't be bothered granting her wishes in such an important respect just so he can blow his stash.

Any declarations of love are fatuous under such circumstance. Lies even.

He has ended up in a position of having a woman rescue him from his own selfishness and at great cost to herself.

Take the risks out of sex and do you even have sex.

Quitting jobs is not in the same league Frank.You are really clutching at straws with that nonsense. Do you really think there's a valid comparison?
If you do, and you seem to do, you must not empathise too well with ladies.

0 Replies

Quote:

reduced her negotiating position

Could you please explain what women are negotiating for?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Frank-

Can't you see that I have never attempted to interfere with a woman's rights in this matter. She can have an abortion even if it is illegal.

Does making it legal leave her more vulnerable to pressurisation by others such as the father of the child or her parents or women who have had one themselves.

Are you trying to claim that by having an abortion she has not, to some extent, denatured herself and reduced her negotiating position.

Yes I am...and I think this part of your argument is absurd.

Quote:

I think you are simply trying to abdicate from the position that it is a man's responsibility to prevent conception in a woman who has granted him the privilege of making love to her. That she subsequently has an abortion proves she didn't wish the conception to take place and what is a man doing if he can't be bothered granting her wishes in such an important respect just so he can blow his stash.

Same remark as above.

By the way...I have had a vasectomy.

Quote:

Any declarations of love are fatuous under such circumstance. Lies even.

I have bedded down many women whom I did not love...and who did not expect love of me. All they wanted was my considerable talent in the sack.

Quote:

He has ended up in a position of having a woman rescue him from his own selfishness and at great cost to herself.

C'mon. You don't really think this is so?

Quote:

Take the risks out of sex and do you even have sex.

Yup! Sometimes with no one else around to pose any risk.

Quote:

Quitting jobs is not in the same league Frank.You are really clutching at straws with that nonsense.

It addressed your concerns...and was adequate...nothing more. It was not clutching at straws...and it was not nonsense. Certainly not more than what you are displaying, Spendi.

Quote:

Do you really think there's a valid comparison?

It had an analogy value. Try to appreciate it.

Quote:

If you do, and you seem to do, you must not empathise too well with ladies.

I empathize just fine with the ladies, thank you.

0 Replies

Boomer wrote-

Quote:

Could you please explain what women are negotiating for?

The perfectly legitimate right to be taken seriously and treated with respect of course which I don't think is the case when she is expected to undergo the indignity of chemical or mechanical neutralising agents and abortion if those fail in a matter which is so easy to deal with by any man who is taking her seriously and being respectful of her natural biology.

One might say that traditional courtship rituals are what she negotiates for.

BTW-while I'm on-

Germaine Greer mentions a small study done by an American gynaecologist called Lehfeldt which he titled Wilful Exposure to Unwanted Pregnancy. It is suggested by Dr Greer that-"It may be another form of attention-getting para-suicide, a way of wounding others or blackmailing them".

As most experts are agreed-in these matters there are no accidents.

What Lehfeldt thought is that the women in his study asserted to him that the pregnancies were "inexplicable accidents" and he didn't believe their assertions. All the 61 women in his study were described as "highly motivated intelligent women quite familiar with contraceptive techniques.
Forty got pregnant and 23 had abortions.

His view was that they got pregnant on purpose for reasons not associated with sex per se. Some reasons are speculated upon.

Any sane gentleman would run away fast from such women.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
The Supreme Court said it was THE issue

....... It has been pointed out to you that in the majority opinion, reference was made to litigants and amicii who were concerned with the "personhood" of a foetus--and that was not a topic introduced by any of the justices....

I didn't say the justices introduced the topic.

But the justices' opinion stated:

Quote:
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
from http://www.roevswade.org/Decision.html

It could not be clearer.

The personhood of the fetus is THE issue (in the opinion of the court) that held the potential to furnish grounds for upholding the state abortion laws that then existed.

Are you having trouble with the word "If," "real life"--is that why you continue to assert that what is not the central point of the majority opinion is the central point. The Court did not uphold the abortion statutes of the State of Texas, the Court did not hold that there were a "personhood" of the foetus which justified the fourteenth amendment rights attributed to a foetus by the State and by amicii arguing in favor of the abortion statutes.

It apperently does not sink in with you that the Court struck down the state abortion statutes, and that they used the qualifier "if" because they did not in fact find that argument compelling.

You continue to project what you would like to believe onto a decision which makes no mention of the "personhood" of a foetus.

0 Replies

You're cherry-picking in the Roe versus Wade decision, just as you do when the topic is evolution.

The entire paragraph from which you have lifted the "personhood passage" comes in section IX of the Court's opinion, when the contention that a foetus may have XIVth Amendment rights is discussed. The entire paragraph, which you have not quoted in full, reads:

Quote:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here, since you seem so intent on ignoring it, let me reiterate and emphasize the Court's closing conclusion on the issue of a foetus as a "person":

On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So you need to stop attempting to peddle that horseshit that the issue of the foetus being a person is central to the Court's decision, because it clearly is not.

0 Replies

Frank-

Are you up for the relationship between the sexes being like that described in Brave New World? There isn't much point in being on the train to that destination if you are not up for arriving at the destination.

On the matter of your expertise "in the sack" we will just have to take your word for it.

Your comparison between you leaving a job and a woman leaving her baby in the incinerator is ridiculous.

0 Replies

Quote:

What Lehfeldt thought is that the women in his study asserted to him that the pregnancies were "inexplicable accidents" and he didn't believe their assertions.

<snork>

Sorry, but in the context of a post regarding taking women seriously and treating them with respect this just struck me as really, really funny.

I'm not at all familiar with the study and barely familiar with Germaine Greer even though she taught at the university I attended while I was a student.

0 Replies

Boomer-

You have forgotten that

Quote:

All the 61 women in his study were described as highly motivated intelligent women quite familiar with contraceptive techniques.

whereas Rubens, say, depicted highly unmotivated,unintelligent (by modern IQ test standards) ladies who knew everything a lady needs to know about contraceptive techniques, and thus deserving of the utmost respect, and any chap who didn't take them seriously was soon told what he could do next.

I'm a bit on the Rubens side myself. Neither he, nor I, had the slightest idea how to deal with highly motivated,intelligent women who are quite (notice the quite) familiar with contraceptive techniques.

0 Replies

I'm trying to find the study but the only Lehfeld I can find is a Hans Lehfeld who was born in Berlin in 1899. He later practiced gynocolgy in America and was an advocate for abortion rights.

(Source: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH16.HTM#b4-LEHFELDT,%20HANS)

His practice was really pre-1950 when contraception was hardly reliable. For him to have said that there are no accidents is laughable.

Diaphrams, which were the most common form of contraception pre 50s, currently have a failure rate of 5% when used correctly - and that is modern diaphrams.

0 Replies

Hans Lehfeldt. Wilful Exposure to Unwanted Pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Gynecology sometimes), Vol 78, September 1959. Page 662.

Quote:

His practice was really pre-1950 when contraception was hardly reliable. For him to have said that there are no accidents is laughable.

Not just him. Everybody. One would need to assume mental incapacity to think otherwise.

They are only called accidents to save the chap's face; to make it sound as if he couldn't help it.

0 Replies

Hmmmm......

I think you are perfectly within bounds to say that you don't want to date a woman who has had an abortion - something that you find repugnangt. I don't at all fault you for that.

I DO think that it is an odd criteria.

I know some truly excellent women that have had abortions. I could offer tons of anecdotal evidence but I won't because I know it wouldn't matter. I have known women that have had abortions then gone on to have children that they treasure. I have known women that have had children that they treasue that have gone on to have abortions.

None of them were happy about it but none of them regretted it either.

I can point to an equal number of women who regretted having children when they shouldn't have as I can point to women who regretted having abortions.

It has been very interesting for me to sit and read about what men think about women on this thread.

It really makes me sad.

We are so much more than our uterus.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

We are so much more than our uterus.

Yes we are boomerang, but apparently only to men who have
a healthy relationship with - and an understanding towards - women.

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know