Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 16 of 17 Posts

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
A comment on this volatile topic: I'd like to believe no one is PRO abortion, but many are pro CHOICE as well as NO CHOICE. I am not a woman and will never be faced with making THAT decision; Therefore, (I feel) governing laws should provide strict guidelines for women (not men) to have options open to them when having to make a choice.
It's fictional to think of it as a "decision" one must make. The decision was made long before the pregnancy was confirmed. A man and a woman made a decision together.
If women have options open to them, men should too. That developing baby is just as much the man's as it is the woman's.
The reality of equality hurts sometimes.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
A man and a woman made a decision together.
They may have only been poking fun and wasn't expecting to be taken serious about it.

If women have options open to them, men should too.
I think up until ejaculation the man has lots of options. After that point, his decision becomes a roll of the dice and his options decrease dramatically. His decision was to do or do not, if do he cedes a lot of control to the woman.

That developing baby is just as much the man's as it is the woman's.
Yes and no, his decision to do has him ceding lots of control to the woman.

I'm holding men to a specific standard. You make it, you pay for it without a lot of say about it until birth. Then the man either Cowboy's Up and becomes a Dad to the best of his ability and as allowed by prevailing law or he's only a male not a man.
If you engage in the ONLY act that leads to pregnancy, it's not a gamble to say it could lead to pregnancy. You should not engage in it if you don't expect the known result. Self-control literally saves lives.

Your conjecture concerning a man's ejaculation supposes the above point was ignored. If the above point is ignored by both parties, they have both made the decision. The consequence is already underway.
If we imagine that additional decisions are up in the air to end the human life being created, those decisions must be available to both parties. Equality.

No control is ceded. This supposes men and women are not equal.
The baby does not exist without both parties. It is, and should legally be considered, equally owned by both parents by default.
Whatever options available to one should be available to the other. The current law, allowing a mother to unilaterally decide to kill the child, is immoral and disregards the father's opinion.
Fair is fair. If the woman has this option, so too should the man. If that sounds barbaric, that's because IT IS, regardless of who makes the choice.

I'm holding all parties to a specific standard. If you engage in sex, you must accept the consequences, just like every other decision you make in you life.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
I apologize to the moderators for making this thread as it might get out of control. Please everyone remember the site guidelines before posting. Also remember that it's ok to hate someone's opinion but not ok to hate the person personally.
Healthy debate should ruffle feathers. It's why we debate at all. We want to express opinions and facts that support our view, and listen to those that support another's view.
Contention is built into the system. But it can remain cordial and should always end with mutual respect. Most debates aren't won during the argument, but in the hearts and minds of the participants well after the discussion has ended.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
I also believe that because it takes both man and woman to cause pregnancy, both the man and woman who caused a pregnancy should have equal say in what happens to their (not just her) unborn child.

I do not believe that any person owns any other person, but both mothers and fathers should take personal responsibility for their children, until their children become adults ... or give up their children to be adopted by someone else who will.
Our society has become so passive with the idea of sex that pregnancy is looked upon as an unintended consequence of the pleasure-seeking experience, and not a direct result.
Along with drug use, it is the height of selfishness to think that sex is only intended for one's own gratification and nothing more. But that is what it's become.
We must correct society's view of this. We must bring sanctity back to the sexual relationship between a man and a woman.
It is my personal view that God gave humans the pleasure of sex as a gift to cherish between a married couple. This won't sit well with some, but I consider it a horrible blaspheme against God to engage in sex outside of marriage. The common retort is "humans will be humans and like to do it". But this would suggest we are no different from wild animals, incapable of restraining our urges. I reject that notion.

Preventatives exist for a reason, but we're becoming less and less focused on informing people about what sex is really for.
So they engage in it, thinking it's normal behavior to have a fling, and never consider the life-altering decision being made.
Pardon the imagery, but having sex should be as important a decision as buying a house with someone. There are expectations and there are consequences, and they have high potential to last a very long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: inceptor

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
My first pregnancy was with twins, but I didn't know it. I knew I was pregnant and wanted to be, but didn't know I was pregnant with two babies. About half way through the pregnancy, one of the twins died. Again, I didn't know. I have O- blood type, which can cause my body to treat a baby with another blood type as an infection or foreign object ... which can cause my body to kill the unborn child. I didn't know that at the time either. I think that is what happened, but don't know for sure. I don't know what gender or blood type the baby who died had. The other was a girl with O+ blood type.

Looking back, I think it would have been better for me, and maybe for the baby that lived, to have had the deceased baby removed from within my womb during pregnancy, than to finish the pregnancy, give birth to one twin, and then the dead one ... that was pretty shocking for me, to say the least. In this case however, my body did the aborting. If the baby would have been and stayed healthy for the whole pregnancy, I would not have chosen to abort.
That must have been very tough.
Thank you for sharing. I hope you have made peace with this and can take solace in knowing you may meet your child again someday.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
Lets play a game. Name that State! No knife above 4 inches long can be concealed, BB guns are classed as fire arms, It is a misdemeanor to use a Taser on a person (unless you are police) , there is no open carry law, there is no stand your ground law. Guns must be locked in a safe at all times SEPERATE from the ammo. Hint it is in New England.
Jersey?
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
Not saying this is the way to go or not, but I think people should know each other really well before they get married, move in together, or start a family.
Completely agree.
My wife and I were engaged for 3 years before we got married, and dated for 2 before that.
Relationships need time to grow. If you get married before the new wears off, you're setting yourself up for failure.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
So, my opinion is a bit outside the norm. As a biologist, I realize that an embryo is a far cry from a human child. As a man, I believe that a woman should be absolutely in charge of what she allows to grow within her body. I also believe that adoption is a far better choice than abortion but again, a woman should be the one to decide that. The government should have no say in this matter. I really don’t feel like debating this set of ideas, but it fits with my overall philosophy of government staying out of my personal life.
If you didn't feel like debating your ideas, why preface with credentials and then state them?

If it is the government's role to ensure the rights of life, liberty, and property(as all powers of a just government serve to do), then how can you pretend that the life of the human inside the mother is not due the same protection?
If a child's own mother won't protect its life, who will?
 
  • Love
Reactions: CC Pereira

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
I don’t hear a lot of pro-lifers talking about how they are supporting these babies they’re “saving” after birth, during their “life”.
That's probably because it isn't their responsibility. It's the responsibility of the people who created the baby.
I don't take responsibility for any other poor decisions they may make, why would I do so for this one?
It's a pretty simple stance...
"Don't kill innocent humans."
Or more simply, "pro-life".
;)
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
You’re proving my point. It seems to me that as soon as the fetus has completed it’s trip through the birth canal, the collective moral obligations for “life” from the “pro-life” movement evaporates and morphs into “personal responsibility”. Maybe “pro-fetal life” or “pro-birth” would be a little more accurate…. My point isn’t that anyone should take responsibility for others’ actions, but if they are “pro-life”, they should support more causes that enrich and support the living.
Are you trying to make a semantics argument, or a moral one?
The purpose of the pro-life movement is, as stated, "don't kill innocent humans".
Argue semantics all you like if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the movement's purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC Pereira

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
In your terms, I would ask how the movement pushes their “don’t kill innocent humans” stance beyond being pro-birth.
Pro-life individuals simply seek to end the killing of innocent humans.

A pretty clear example of the pro-life doctrine was applied during the Terri Schaivo case.
That woman, through no indication of acceptance given by her, was executed via starvation while her own parents were kept out of her hospital room by guards stationed to ensure she received zero food or water.
There was national outcry at the notion that a husband could unilaterally control the life of his disabled wife, and that her own parents had no say.

I know you really want to twist this into a "society should pay" argument, and are attempting a logical argument correlation in order to get there, but it's a false premise.
The decision to engage in the only activity that can lead to pregnancy is a choice made by two people who bear FULL responsibility for the result.
Protecting the innocent life created SHOULD be their primary focus. But when it is not, others step in to try to do so.
Protecting the life is separate and apart from bearing financial burden. Someone out there is willing to bear that burden on the parent's behalf via adoption. We only ask that the child, and those adoptive parents, be given that opportunity... and the innocent human to not be killed.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
I made no indication that financial burden should be shared. I simply stated that life extends beyond birth and that for the “pro-birth” group to be truly “pro-life”, they should fight for causes that are promoting life consistently.
And I gave an example.
If you can find other instances where innocent lives are being lost, and can find nobody opposing the action, I'd like to know about them.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
If you are indicating that the only cause/position that you can think of that saves lives and promotes life is being anti-abortion, then there is really no reason for us to converse.
Nice try, but that isn't what I said.
You claim that pro-life people are only focused on births.
I asked you to provide any instance where innocent human lives are being lost and there is no advocate group fighting against the atrocity, and you cannot produce one.
Pro-life people speak out against senseless killings of innocent people all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC Pereira

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
Maybe we can start with the list of advocacy groups you are part of and go from there… or even the threads you comment on in which you speak against senseless killing.
We are discussing a topic. This will not devolve into the personal space.

You made a claim. Your claim was contested WITH support. A reply to the contestation is expected.
Support your claim or acquiesce.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
You did not contest my observation with credible evidence
I gave you a specific case. Even the Catholic church came out in support of Terri, comparing their stance on her life as equal to their stance on unborn babies.
Pro-life is pro-life. You can play with semantics all you like.
“Pro-birth” in my opinion.
'Nuff said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC Pereira

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,605 Posts
@WolfBrother, @theprincipal, chill with the personal stuff. Stay on topic.

I've engaged in no straw-man argument.
You made a claim.
I provided a rebuttal that your claim does not fully encompass the entirety of the movement.
You asked for an example of the movement that extends passed birth.
I provided a specific example that clearly refuted your belief that pro-life is solely confined to births.
You ignored it and later claimed it to be without evidence. Since the case was nationally known and widely argued, the evidence is available and sound.
You persisted with "they should fight for causes that are promoting life consistently", which I already revealed to be the case, and provided the Catholic church as one such entity, being against the practice of euthanasia (link).
Again, you dismiss and persist without any substantive counterpoint being made. Just accusations against the general term "pro-life".

We can agree that there are specific organizations which are pro-life, and solely focus on the birth of babies.
But you made a generalization about a broad term, which is easy to defeat and has been.

If you wish to continue to argue your point, the onus is on you to prove that all so-called "pro-life" movements are solely and completely confined to the realm of births.
Since I've already provided an argument on behalf of the Catholic church, this endeavor will be impossible. But you're free to try.

No straw man. But I do expect more effort than simple dismissal because you don't like the facts presented.

I will concede that the organizations which are specifically focused on births could be called "anti-abortion".
But you would have to make an extremely strong argument for why their opponents are not then rightly called "pro-abortion". Of the three(at minimum) humans involved in a pregnancy, two(or more) of them don't get any "choice", so that descriptor is an intellectual red herring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WolfBrother
1 - 16 of 17 Posts
Top