Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

US Elections 2020

Recommended Posts

Honest question here of a philosophical nature than anything else. Of course anyone who responds will be offering opinion, but that is what I am looking for. Try to keep in mind while offering an opinion, to not let the question, or the thoughts leading to it, become based on anger but more based on sensibility.

On the subject of abortion, why does it matter how a child is conceived? The mention of being raped during wartime has little to do with the subject of abortion, other than the act is done with out consent. Yes rape is wrong and anyone who has some sense knows this. Especially the offended woman, who has to endure loss of freedom and the indignity of being powerless to stop it. Yet, the choice of abortion isn't being done to save the mother's life or even to end a pregnancy due to the child having genetic problems. I'm sure there could be exceptions but my previous sentence is a generalization. The conceived child did nothing and nor would the child ever know how they came to be unless told later in life. Basically the child would be innocent of any wrong doing. The future hardship of being pregnant or birthing a child during a war time would have its inherent disadvantages. Even still, many woman do bear children during wars.

So, why it is even a debatable scenario to think woman could contemplate aborting a child as a result of rape in a war zone during war time?

 

I do have an opinion on the answer to my question, but the choices aren't based on logic or commonsense. They are based on other factors instilled in people by social norms which aren't always real, but in the minds of those being affected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Splay said:

On the subject of abortion, why does it matter how a child is conceived? 

So, why it is even a debatable scenario to think woman could contemplate aborting a child as a result of rape in a war zone during war time?

 

I assume it matters to the woman.  It's her body, her life and she is the one that is going to have to deal with the physical, psychological and financial ramifications.  She alone (in coordination with her doctor) should be making that determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Splay said:

On the subject of abortion, why does it matter how a child is conceived?

I can only put it into what I assume is a male perspective so I can try to put myself in a woman's shoes on this.

I'd have to imagine that a person of a hypothetical 3rd gender, maybe 7 and a half foot tall, twice my strength, smells strange, and predatory, has forced itself on me, put a part of its body in me, removed all of my agency and free will, hurt me, psychologically damaged me, and did all of this for its own selfish gratification. That has then caused a thing to start growing in me over nearly a year, like a damn chestburster but not as mercifully quick, changing my body and mind to accommodate for it, and it would eventually be painfully delivered as a child that's part rape-monster. Personally, I wouldn't go through with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Splay said:

Honest question here of a philosophical nature than anything else. Of course anyone who responds will be offering opinion, but that is what I am looking for. Try to keep in mind while offering an opinion, to not let the question, or the thoughts leading to it, become based on anger but more based on sensibility.

On the subject of abortion, why does it matter how a child is conceived? The mention of being raped during wartime has little to do with the subject of abortion, other than the act is done with out consent. Yes rape is wrong and anyone who has some sense knows this. Especially the offended woman, who has to endure loss of freedom and the indignity of being powerless to stop it. Yet, the choice of abortion isn't being done to save the mother's life or even to end a pregnancy due to the child having genetic problems. I'm sure there could be exceptions but my previous sentence is a generalization. The conceived child did nothing and nor would the child ever know how they came to be unless told later in life. Basically the child would be innocent of any wrong doing. The future hardship of being pregnant or birthing a child during a war time would have its inherent disadvantages. Even still, many woman do bear children during wars.

So, why it is even a debatable scenario to think woman could contemplate aborting a child as a result of rape in a war zone during war time?

 

I do have an opinion on the answer to my question, but the choices aren't based on logic or commonsense. They are based on other factors instilled in people by social norms which aren't always real, but in the minds of those being affected.

 

The method of conception matters because no one is actually "pro-abortion," contrary to what has been asserted.  Just like pro-lifers aren't actually pro-life.  I think it's pretty screwed up for a woman to use abortion as a means of contraception.  However, I don't have a uterus, so my personal opinions should not be foisted on other people.  So I take a hands off and mouth shut approach to the whole thing.  I don't think that highly subjective beliefs should ever be used to dictate national policy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread and don't have time to find all the parts where you all have written about abortion.

Here, from my perspective as a mother, some thoughts.

- If I were to become pregnant after rape, I would have an aversion to being pregnant and later to the child, as a. the impregnation was against my will, b. the pregnancy would be against my will, c. the child would have half the genes of the rapist and maybe even resemble him. Whether I would or wouldn't be able to financially support the child would not even play a role in the decision making process. I would abort as early as possible - and now with the morning after pill that can be immediately after the fact - which I then don't see as an abortion as it's an unimplanted clump of cells.

- About the scenario of rape in a war zone during a war: often the rape is done by enemy soldiers. Often this is a way of psychological warfare: by raping the women, their men are emasculated, the women humiliated, and the pregnancies are spoils of war that will stay as stains on the defeated and as 'signs of victory' for the other side 'forever'.

Thus, in my opinion, Doro got it right. Take it further though: after birth, you now have to take care of this child for at least another 15/18 years?

- Really odd thing: many Jezidi women were taken as sex slaves by IS. Many had children by them, and after they were liberated they returned to their homelands. There they were given this choice: you can come back and live with us if you give up your child to live elsewhere. If you are not willing to do that, you are not welcome with us. The children tainted the mothers, despite what the mothers had gone through.

- I have been told by child psychiatrists that the feelings of a pregnant woman towards the fetus, prior to giving birth, already impact how the mother then, and later, will bond with the child. If the mother is averse, which in the case of rape would be understandable, this will have negative consequences for the child and will be difficult to overcome later in life. I see the aversion (because of the rape) and the desire to not give birth to/raise this child as a natural reflex from the mother to prevent herself from having to go through hating that child later on and to prevent the child of going through that rejection and hate (yes, I paint a black/white picture, there are probably a lot of shades of grey as well).

- With regard to contraception, it also can go the other way. When a man has a vasectomy, the woman has no say either. Thus it's not always the woman who is in control over having a child.

- All the above show, at least to me, that it is better to have two parents who both want the child than 1 who does and the other who doesn't or even 2 who don't. The results of not/half being wanted are not pretty.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Papi said:

he did call for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior."  So yeah...

This was in the context of promiscuity and HIV/AIDS. Nothing to do with conversion and more like "change their sexual behavior" = don't be a slut (or practice safe-sex if you are going to be)

 

16 hours ago, Papi said:

It's her body, her life

 

16 hours ago, Amenhir said:

I don't have a uterus, so my personal opinions should not be foisted on other people

Nonsense like the above ignores that many women are anti-abortion too.

Beyond that it's nothing but disingenuous virtue signalling. No one consistently believes they can't have an opinion on X because it doesn't affect their particular identity group. Abortion is the one magical exception

Don't own a gun so no opinion allowed on gun laws? Women who aren't subject to being drafted forbidden to have any opinions on war? Good luck trying to claim women can't have an opinion on masculinity because they aren't men. Or even better - tell POCs they can't have an opinion on white people.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bohemond said:

Nonsense like the above ignores that many women are anti-abortion too.

Beyond that it's nothing but disingenuous virtue signalling. No one consistently believes they can't have an opinion on X because it doesn't affect their particular identity group. Abortion is the one magical exception

Don't own a gun so no opinion allowed on gun laws? Women who aren't subject to being drafted forbidden to have any opinions on war? Good luck trying to claim women can't have an opinion on masculinity because they aren't men. Or even better - tell POCs they can't have an opinion on white people.

 

You don't know what foisted means.  My opinions on abortion should be not used to dictate the decisions made by the other 350 million people in the country.  Just like using subjective religious beliefs should not.  Do you think it would be ok for a vegan president to outlaw consumption of meat?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amenhir said:

You don't know what foisted means.  My opinions on abortion should be not used to dictate the decisions made by the other 350 million people in the country.  Just like using subjective religious beliefs should not.  Do you think it would be ok for a vegan president to outlaw consumption of meat?

Actually, you need to be more careful with your choice of words - you mention your opinion being foisted, which does not change opinion into something else and certainly not "dictate the decisions" ... in the context of your previous post, it basically means sharing an opinion that is not welcome. 

And there's really nothing subjective about abortion - it's an objectively horrific process, which is made all the clearer by the massive cognitive dissonance displayed by those who support it.

More than anything (more even than tertiary study of anatomy & physiology ) I have found myself against abortion due to the universally weak and contradictory arguments of those in favour of it.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bohemond said:

the massive cognitive dissonance displayed by those who support it....

 

There seems to be a lot of that coming from your side of the argument as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bohemond said:

And there's really nothing subjective about abortion - it's an objectively horrific process

That depends on the context. Late-term surgical, sure it's pretty rough. Before 8 weeks and chemical? I've known people who said it wasn't much more than a heavy period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bohemond said:

Actually, you need to be more careful with your choice of words - you mention your opinion being foisted, which does not change opinion into something else and certainly not "dictate the decisions" ... in the context of your previous post, it basically means sharing an opinion that is not welcome. 

And there's really nothing subjective about abortion - it's an objectively horrific process, which is made all the clearer by the massive cognitive dissonance displayed by those who support it.

More than anything (more even than tertiary study of anatomy & physiology ) I have found myself against abortion due to the universally weak and contradictory arguments of those in favour of it.

 

I had this whole paragraph typed out, but then I had a moment of clarity.  I realized I just don't give a shit.  

"I have found myself against abortion due to the universally weak and contradictory arguments of those in favour of it."  There isn't any argument that could be made that will change your mind.  It's obvious that your entire stance is based on your feels, and nothing more.  That is why you should never have a say in the matter, at least not one of any import.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bohemond said:

And there's really nothing subjective about abortion - it's an objectively horrific process, which is made all the clearer by the massive cognitive dissonance displayed by those who support it.

More than anything (more even than tertiary study of anatomy & physiology ) I have found myself against abortion due to the universally weak and contradictory arguments of those in favour of it.

Okay, first, there's three types of "abortion". The first is the morning after pill, which effectively is the regular anti-conception pill in a massive dose, designed to prevent any pregnancy from occurring after sex. While the massive dose of hormones might be not very nice for the body, I think we can all agree that's not what most "anti-abortion" people are against. Those that are, often are against it from a religious point of view I've found and I discredit views based on religion by the simple reason that your (not meaning you Bohemond, just your in the general sense) religion should not be forced upon me or anyone else, neither should your religious convictions hinder me in my daily life. Certainly not when that comes to family planning.

The second is the medical necessity category. In these cases, it's the fetus comes out or the woman dies, or for example a child is put onto the world with severe medical defects which impact the viability of the fetus severely or have enormous negative impacts on the quality of life. Most will agree that in these cases there's some leeway. It is indeed a horrific process, these often late term abortions, but they serve a purpose.

The third is the "regular" abortion. This is the one most "pro-life" people rail against. It's the process by which the clump of cells that has attached to the uterus is medically removed. Disregard all the horror stories about "the skull being crushed" etc, that's not the case here. Here's where the rubbish arguments such as "it's murder" come in, plus people thumping their bible. It's not murder. It's a clump of parasitic cells that feed of the host body for sustenance. There is no viability of life. So even the "sanctity of life" rubbish doesn't come in, as there is no sentient being. Unless of course we define a clump of cells a few weeks old to be a sentient being, but at that point you open up a whole other can of worms. We're talking unlawful imprisonment, guardians ad litem for any pregnant woman's fetus..

And most importantly: it's not your choice. It's the woman's choice, which is hopefully made with the full support of the man that was involved. It's her choice. Her body that will undergo hormonal changes for months, her life that gets dramatically altered if she carries a pregnancy to term.

Most abortion laws in the US are drawn up by old men, politicians, some of which have demonstrated a truely abhorrent understanding of the subject matter. Politicians who will take lobbyist money and even complete concept laws before they will listen to experts. If you want sensible abortion laws, ask doctors. They too will include some who's religious views will include a complete ban on abortion, but the majority of the experts in the field will not, because they know what they are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Amenhir said:

It's obvious that your entire stance is based on your feels, and nothing more

Now you're just projecting. My entire stance is based on logic using my own understanding of biology through formal study (particularly embryology) and weighing the opinions of people on both sides. The pro abortion side twists itselfs into pretezels trying to maintain constant contradictions. Anyway, you've got the wrong gentials so are not allowed an opinion...right?

9 hours ago, MueR said:

Most abortion laws in the US are drawn up by old men

Men who were voted in by women. It's also funny how no one on the left objects to the all male supreme court ruling on Roe vs Wade. Men, it seems, are allowed an opinion only if it's the correct one. Same goes for women who are against abortion.

9 hours ago, MueR said:

And most importantly: it's not your choice. It's the woman's choice, which is hopefully made with the full support of the man that was involved. It's her choice. 

Yet this is the same language used to justify abortion at any stage for any reason - yes, there are those who will claim that late term abortions even minutes from birth are "the woman's choice".  Unless we (as a society) want to allow and support infanticide, a line has to be drawn somewhere - and the problem is the line ends up being completely arbitrary (e.g. the magically life creating birth canal) or based on criteria (e.g. brain activity measured by EEG) that isn't fully understood and subject to change through scientific advances. It's not sa simple an issue as the newspeak "woman's choice reproductive health" tries to make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bohemond said:

Anyway, you've got the wrong gentials so are not allowed an opinion...right?

I think he made it fairly clear that he said he's allowed to have an opinion, he's just not allowed to force that opinion on someone else, which is a pretty fucking reasonable stance.

5 hours ago, Bohemond said:

Unless we (as a society) want to allow and support infanticide, a line has to be drawn somewhere - and the problem is the line ends up being completely arbitrary (e.g. the magically life creating birth canal) or based on criteria (e.g. brain activity measured by EEG) that isn't fully understood and subject to change through scientific advances.

So where are you drawing your own arbitrary line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doro said:

So where are you drawing your own arbitrary line?

I haven't really drawn one - but I don't have to. Society does, however (as I mentioned) - and it does so through the creation of laws that help shape what sort of society we want to be. These laws of course grow from a multitude of opinions and are enacted by elected representatives, so yes in some cases an opinion can - and should - be enforced upon others. Someone has the opinion that private property should be protected, laws are created, and this opinion is then imposed on me such that I cannot legally take all your stuff.

Personally, I understand that (1) new unique human DNA is created at conception, and (2) a live human baby exits the birth canal during successful childbirth. No one reasonably argues against these two facts. This means everyone agrees that human life starts at either (1) or (2) or ... somewhere in between.

Since we're not sure, my thought is, why not err on the side of caution? (1) is the only point that's not entirely arbitrary - but it's also the end of the continuum where "bundle of cells" is actually somewhat accurate. The best argument I've heard is the onset of brainwaves - which has been shown as early as 45 days. Perhaps future research will find it is even earlier than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bohemond said:

(1) is the only point that's not entirely arbitrary

It is also arbitrary in the reasoning behind choosing it as a point of importance. Fertilisation takes about a day itself, from a sperm penetrating and egg to the genes sorting themselves out, so are we talking the end of fertilisation, or the beginning? Plus, you could decide to start instead at the point where the embryo implants itself in the uterus, otherwise it having "new" DNA is pointless. If it gets stuck in the Fallopian tube, that fertilised egg is fucked. Then, you've also got the issue of a placenta not forming, if that happens by that point does it still matter that there's "new" DNA involved? It would make sense then that maybe life gets decided here instead, as it's not going to be viable and keep developing without it. And at that point, we're talking something like a week and it's still only about 100 cells in a ball.

The issue with erring on the side of caution is that there's such a thing as being too cautious.

 

Back on Trump, I saw a sudden lot of pearl-clutchers getting upset on social media about a "horrendous" video that was made to make Trump look like he was murdering his enemies in a church. Shit, I thought they were talking a proper mock-up of a terrorist attack or something. Nope, turns out it was just that scene from Kingsman with some faces and logos in place of the original actors' faces. It's a classic meme format and clearly intended for humour, but you wouldn't think it from all the complaints.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doro said:

It is also arbitrary in the reasoning behind choosing it as a point of importance. Fertilisation takes about a day itself, from a sperm penetrating and egg to the genes sorting themselves out, so are we talking the end of fertilisation, or the beginning? Plus, you could decide to start instead at the point where the embryo implants itself in the uterus, otherwise it having "new" DNA is pointless. If it gets stuck in the Fallopian tube, that fertilised egg is fucked. Then, you've also got the issue of a placenta not forming, if that happens by that point does it still matter that there's "new" DNA involved? It would make sense then that maybe life gets decided here instead, as it's not going to be viable and keep developing without it. And at that point, we're talking something like a week and it's still only about 100 cells in a ball.

The issue with erring on the side of caution is that there's such a thing as being too cautious.

 

Back on Trump, I saw a sudden lot of pearl-clutchers getting upset on social media about a "horrendous" video that was made to make Trump look like he was murdering his enemies in a church. Shit, I thought they were talking a proper mock-up of a terrorist attack or something. Nope, turns out it was just that scene from Kingsman with some faces and logos in place of the original actors' faces. It's a classic meme format and clearly intended for humour, but you wouldn't think it from all the complaints.

 

Except it's not funny.  This is not a meme of Mickey Mouse shooting the entire Looney Tunes roster, or vice versa, Daffy Duck killing Disney characters.  This is the Potus shooting a bunch of people he has labeled as "enemies of the people."  There are enough unhinged nuts out there that would view this as a call to arms.  Keep in mind all those gun toting, compound having, bunker dwellers who believe Trump was appointed by God, or the second coming of Jesus.  Just to be perfectly clear, it would also be inappropriate for a meme depicting Obama shooting a bunch of Republican Senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×