just wondering... your description of this video (and in this video) you describe yourself as a "liberal commie". Liberalism seeks individual liberty and equal opportunity. While communism stifle's both. I'm trying to enlighten my "myopic" mind (as you put it), would you please provide me some insight? Maybe I'm getting too old to understand today's youth. (lol)
First of all, I don't think Communism stifles liberty and opportunity anymore then Capitalism does. It's just the idiots who run the Communist countries.
Secondly, I was being sarcastic. There are lots of right wind fundie nutters who call anyone who thinks differently is a liberal commie
This is a gem. The U.S. wasn't founded on christian principles? I suggest you reread the Constitution and the Declaration of independence. I see a creator mentioned in there several times. I don't see atheism. Maybe if you weren't created you cannot be guaranteed certain "inalienable rights". But I digress.. Honestly I ALMOST agree with you. Murder is wrong in all it's forms (incl. death penalty). If rape victims were the only abortionists, I'm sure we Christians would be more understanding...
While a creator is mentioned, that doesn't mean it's the Christian God. In fact, none of the founding fathers were Christians - they were atheists or deists.
Read the Constitution? How about you read the Treaty of Tirpoli, written by the Founding Fathers.
Not true at all. The only one that may have NOT been a Christian (in some from) was Ben Franklin. Yet he still gets credit for the quote "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy". I minored in American history young lady, I'll be hard to beat on this one. the treaty of Tripoli was not written by or signed by any of those that are given credit for the "Founding" of this nation. Add to that the fact that there's contraversy over the translation...
Yes, the Treaty of Tripoli was not signed by the Founding Fathers, so I retract that statement.
However, I can actually prove that the founding fathers were all deists, plain and simple. And even if they weren't, they did not fond this nation on Christian Principals because they KNEW that Religious Theocracies always took away the rights of the minority. It's why they wrote Freedom of Religion into the Constitution. Early Americans were Christians - the Founders were not.
It really was founded on Christian principles, more as a guide than a rule. And absolutely, religous theocracies historically we painful (for lack of a better word) for the people. As an american, I have no interest in taking any rights away, enumerated or otherwise (also see 2nd amendment). But we are a representative republic. If we elect a christian, we accept that his legislation will have chriustian bias, same with muslim, atheist, etc... so religion is abundant in our form of democracy...
... it just so happens that historically, we are a nation of Christianity. So as Americans, we are forced to accept the religion (or lack there of) of our leaders. That's why we are the melting pot. As far as the abotrtion topic, it's another political football. Democrats don't really care if it's legal and republicans don't really care if it isn't. They say one or the other to buy our votes, get it? And to be honest, you don't have to be christian to know that murder is wrong for any reason.
Yes. We're a Nation Of Christians. But we shouldn't be seen that way. Our nation was founded on the Principles of Separation of Church and State, so it shouldn't matter that the majority of the voters are Catholic - our leaders should do what's right from a purely secular stand point. The fact that "In God We Trust" was added onto our money and "Under God" onto our pledge would have sickened our Founding Fathers.
That's a little dishonest. Just because it sickens you does nothing to our founding fathers. Communism, on the other hand, that would sicken our founding fathers. the "separation of church and state" was not even used until 100 years after the constitution was ratified, and not really settled until 1948. And taking a secular point of view when it comes to lawmaking is nearly impossible. What's right for you is invariably wrong to someone else. What, or who, then is the moral compass?
Oh, and I don't think we're seen as a Christian Nation, we're highly regarded throughout the world as a melting pot of all religions, races, sexes, creeds, etc.
Help me to understand something, if we elected a gay person to congress, would it be fair to say that they would have a different view of "right and wrong" as opposed to say a muslim? Also, our money can say whatever it wants, it pretty much privately owned now anyways. That's why we have debit cards ;-)
i think i completely agree. and im a christian,right wing, whatever you wanna call it. ive got a video about it(read description) i think abortion should be prescribed in cases of danger to the mother, but no other reason like "accidents"
Why not make walk-in abortions illegal? And make it so you have to get a court order for an abortion. In the case of a rape, the mom's life being in danger, or she is totally homeless and out of money.
I don't see the point in killing a baby just because you don't want it. If the mom wasn't raped, then it is the parents fault. Not the kids. THEY screwed up, and they shouldn't kill somone for no good reason besides saying simply that "they don't want it."
"A fetus isn't alive......." (In the description and the video)
Ok, have you even taken biology? Do you know when something is considered alive? Or are you pulling this out of your ass? I go with the ladder.
To be considered alive, things need to have these five properties:
1. Reproduce. (The poetential, or past potential to reproduce in your life span. The fetus would grow up and could reproduce). I mean, they can't then, but first graders are living right?
I liked it but found one flaw. Separation of church and state is dead. Dead as the aborted babies (too much?). If separation of church and state was not dead then there would be gay marriage, churches would pay taxes, and abortion wouldn't be an issue.
I FUCKING LOVE YOU! oh sorry for the creepiness. but very well said. and you are fucking awesome. and you're extremely smart. and not because i share your view, but I LOVE THIS VIDEO ! 'i would never even hurt a fly, well... maybe a mosquito; those nastly little shits.' btw, i'm Christian and pro-choice; just throwing that out there. :P
hey don't label all christians as anti choice. i support a woman's right to choose an abortion. yes it is a sin but we can't make laws based on what the bible says. the belief that a fetus equals a full human is a religious belief not a scientific one. we need to work towards turning our society away from abortion not outlawing it.
There isn't even a religious basis for opposing abortion, at least not for Christians.
Exodus 21:22-25 treats accidentally causing a miscarriage as a property crime.
Leviticus 27:6 and Numbers 3:15 assigns no value to infants younger than a month old, nor do they recognize young infants as human beings.
The oft-quoted fragment of Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee..." only means that God had pre-ordained Jeremiah as a prophet, not that life begins at conception.
as a suggestion, maybe you should have put a pic in your video of what most aborted feotuses look like. Seriously they aren't even human like yet so why consider them as important as a human or even more important than a human women? Clump of cells with the same level of life as a tumor don't deserve the same treatment as a infant.
These pro-life Christians should go fuck themselves, seriously, we don't give a shit about your bible so why should we have to abide by it?
They arn't human yet?! That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
If they arn't human, then explain why they carry the same genetic instructions as you and I, and whose proteins are being contructed throughout the nine month span of time. Fact is, they are the same as you and I, only smaller and easier to take advantage of.
nothing like fucking up my phrase, douche. I said they aren't HUMAN LIKE, you know, lack limbs and organs?! Also if we want to get into technical terms a tumor also shares the DNA of the recipient as far as I know.
By your conclusion, a tumor is a human and thus should not be "killed".
I think women need to close their legs. Most women sleep around way too much and abuse means of birth control. Why should an innocent child have to be butchered because some skank needed to have sex?
And if a women is so desperate to get rid of the baby and turns to knock-off means of abortion, so be it--it's her personel choice.
The only time I accept abortion is when a mother's life is at stake, or in the case of rape.
You're not as smart as you think you are. I've listened to several of your videos and Desertphile's recommendation of you actually has harmed my opinion of him.
Yay! I think we should know by now that the only thing we do by outlawing civil liberties is create a new class of 'criminals', it doesn't detract from said neccesity or pleasure. A woman is master of her body, and those stuffy congressment/senators (my fav part of the vid btw) should keep thier noses out of other ppls crotches plz...
The main problem is that there's millions of abortions, for non life related issues such as higher wages. There are many women who are pro-life. In a CBS poll 40% of men wanted abortion generally available and 37% of women did. The politicians shouldn't voice on it since they're vote grabbing bastards, so I agree. To my knowledge there have been no incidents of coat hanger abortions ever, and less than 100 deaths a year from back alley abortions in the 1970s. Eh.
Men raise babies. Men pay for child care. Our taxes pay for hospitals. A man could have the wellbeing of a girl at heart. In so much as women care what men think, of course they have an opinion. I mean, as a practical manner, if a man was going to dump a woman because if she had an abortion, and she loved him, his opinion would obviously matter to her. Conversely, if he said he would accompany her to the clinic, hold her hand through it, that could encourage her.
That would be anti-democratic. Firstly, many men have far more knowledge about babies than women. A child doctor would be far more able to handle the issues than the average mother because they have both the science and the experience of talking to lots of mothers and fathers. It'd be hard to work out who's best qualified, and I wouldn't trust white men in parliament to work it out. The woman has the greater claim since the baby is in her belly, but voteswise- wouldn't work.
It doesn't matter. You can know everything there is to know about the pain of having your nails stapled to a table, but until you've actually experienced it, it seems a bit silly to go saying "Oh, that's nothing," or, "oh, this is what I'd do."
Now, I'm not saying bearing children is like stapling your hand to a table. But its the same principle in that, in the same way you'd be afraid of some creep about to whose tied your hands down and has a giant staple gun, women (con.)
can get emotionally unstable while carrying children because of hormones. And until you've been pregnant, then you've got nothing to say on the actual processes of it and what the women's eventual decision is.
Legally, this means the government should stay out of abortions, and that in the end, it's the women's choice weather or not to abort the baby. Her husband can support one decision or the other, but in the end he shouldn't make her feel forced to have the child or not. That's cruel.
Women should make a decision based on lots of thought, not an emotional whim. Men know what the outcomes of a abortion is, and what women think generally during it, and thus they can add their opinion. Banning men from making a decision in general would be stupid. You don't have any experience of pregnancy, yet you have an opinion, and you don't have the experiences of any other women. Just word of mouth. Should only abortion women be able to decide the law?
An emotional whim IS a thought. Let's say you're given a choice - 50$ if you tear off your own fingernails, or walk away. If you're thinking with pure logic, then it makes sense. Your fingernails will grow back (so long as they've not been ripped off before), and you get 50$. No real loss for you and you gain 50$. And yet, a lot of people would say no, because they don't want to go threw that pain. Is that wrong?
Now, you may argue they're separate things because one's a life and the other isn't. But as I said, life isn't alive until it's born. And I'm not saying MEN shouldn't decide. I'm saying men who don't give a shit about women shouldn't decide. It's one thing for a loving husband to tell his wife she shouldn't get an abortion when she wants one. Usually that's the better idea - NOT to get one. And other perspectives can be healthy. But the husband can't ever truly know what his wife is going (cont)
through. He can study up on it, and know all there is to know, but you can't know anything until you experience it - and he can't truly know what his wife is thinking. The only one who can is the wife. And the final decision is hers. And Conservative, Evangelical nutjobs who think feminism is a horrible movement encouraging women to take over the world (Not kidding there, either) shouldn't be the ones in charge of what is, in the end, entirely the women's choice.
The government has to decide whether to fund the practise, fund it, have it in schools, and junk. They also may disagree whether it is a life, particularly in late term abortions, a lot of people do too, as about 60% of people want tighter laws, and so may be oblidged to protect life. So, in general terms, some laws are needed. if you assume that the baby has under 1/10,000th worth of a human, as you implied, then you'd believe the choice is generally permissible. People who don't would disagree
The purpose of money is to increase you pleasure, so the pain of it can be taken into account. Plus you'd have risk of infection, be uglier, not be able to do a lot of tasks that need nails. An emotional whim would be like if you were worried about your financial future, and so accepted the offer despite the crappiness. in terms of abortion, it'd be getting an abortion because you were at that moment feeling crap. Hormones messing up your mind don't make you better qualified.
Missed this comment. So, would you say that only people who have had their hands stapled to the table should be tortured? Maybe poll everyone on whether they would want to be tortured if they were planning a dangerous act that would hurt America, and if they said no, not torture them? Regardless, I, who have never had my head thrust into a toilet and been swore at, or told to say I'm a terrorist or I'll have my nails ripped out, can say I know enough about the pain to say no to torture.
"A man could have the wellbeing of a girl at heart."
That has nothing to do with men having any legitimate say on the subject of abortion.
Etc. Etc. If men don't want girls and women to have abortions, or if men want girls and women to have abortions, they can just go fuck themselves---- it's none of their goddamn business.
Men have the ability to empathize with women and thus can understand a measure of their pain and hurt. Also the financial consequences of extended periods of absense are readily understandable by men. The woman knows her own circumstances better than others, but men and non pregnant women can help with the issues. Also, the issues of late term abortions and women dying, and prenatal protection of babies are important for all.
If you can understand an issue, you can have a say on it. Say, with the iraqi war. You're not a soldier, or a citizen, but that doesn't mean you should be censored if you say in a poll or a referendum that you not yay clusterbomb. You are indirectly affected by the issue, in that you have to pay money, and that other people's view of you is affected, and can care. Should I be arguing on the subject of abortion empathy, or the philosophical correctness of democracy as opposed to dictatorship?
wat about the next hitler??
makiesharigan 2 years ago
I beleive abortion is wrong.
Weather or not it should be illeagle... I don't know.
Of course a sane woman who is pregnent from a rape would realize that the rape wasn't the baby's house and that killing it would be selfish.
But there are crazy people like you in the world who think abortions are necessary.
TheCandyManCan1 2 years ago
You didn't listen to a word I said, did you?
I said I don't like abortion and that there's a lot of problems talking about it.
I believe that I don't like it, and it's not good, but it's got to happen.
I happen to believe that it is a necessity to be legal because the alternative is dangerous to both mother and child.
KyoraMishiso 2 years ago
Killing Adolf Hitler is much different than killing an innocent child.
TheCandyManCan1 2 years ago
just wondering... your description of this video (and in this video) you describe yourself as a "liberal commie". Liberalism seeks individual liberty and equal opportunity. While communism stifle's both. I'm trying to enlighten my "myopic" mind (as you put it), would you please provide me some insight? Maybe I'm getting too old to understand today's youth. (lol)
thereprieve 2 years ago
First of all, I don't think Communism stifles liberty and opportunity anymore then Capitalism does. It's just the idiots who run the Communist countries.
Secondly, I was being sarcastic. There are lots of right wind fundie nutters who call anyone who thinks differently is a liberal commie
KyoraMishiso 2 years ago
"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, ten goals.
Carmilla is royally screwed then, if you ever rule the world.
Also, upload faster.
Ytaker 2 years ago
This is a gem. The U.S. wasn't founded on christian principles? I suggest you reread the Constitution and the Declaration of independence. I see a creator mentioned in there several times. I don't see atheism. Maybe if you weren't created you cannot be guaranteed certain "inalienable rights". But I digress.. Honestly I ALMOST agree with you. Murder is wrong in all it's forms (incl. death penalty). If rape victims were the only abortionists, I'm sure we Christians would be more understanding...
thereprieve 2 years ago
Yes, actually. It wasn't.
While a creator is mentioned, that doesn't mean it's the Christian God. In fact, none of the founding fathers were Christians - they were atheists or deists.
Read the Constitution? How about you read the Treaty of Tirpoli, written by the Founding Fathers.
KyoraMishiso 2 years ago
Not true at all. The only one that may have NOT been a Christian (in some from) was Ben Franklin. Yet he still gets credit for the quote "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy". I minored in American history young lady, I'll be hard to beat on this one. the treaty of Tripoli was not written by or signed by any of those that are given credit for the "Founding" of this nation. Add to that the fact that there's contraversy over the translation...
thereprieve 2 years ago
I just looked it up.
Yes, the Treaty of Tripoli was not signed by the Founding Fathers, so I retract that statement.
However, I can actually prove that the founding fathers were all deists, plain and simple. And even if they weren't, they did not fond this nation on Christian Principals because they KNEW that Religious Theocracies always took away the rights of the minority. It's why they wrote Freedom of Religion into the Constitution. Early Americans were Christians - the Founders were not.
KyoraMishiso 2 years ago
It really was founded on Christian principles, more as a guide than a rule. And absolutely, religous theocracies historically we painful (for lack of a better word) for the people. As an american, I have no interest in taking any rights away, enumerated or otherwise (also see 2nd amendment). But we are a representative republic. If we elect a christian, we accept that his legislation will have chriustian bias, same with muslim, atheist, etc... so religion is abundant in our form of democracy...
thereprieve 2 years ago
Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson
KyoraMishiso 2 years ago
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone." -Thomas Jefferson
thereprieve 2 years ago
... it just so happens that historically, we are a nation of Christianity. So as Americans, we are forced to accept the religion (or lack there of) of our leaders. That's why we are the melting pot. As far as the abotrtion topic, it's another political football. Democrats don't really care if it's legal and republicans don't really care if it isn't. They say one or the other to buy our votes, get it? And to be honest, you don't have to be christian to know that murder is wrong for any reason.
thereprieve 2 years ago
Yes. We're a Nation Of Christians. But we shouldn't be seen that way. Our nation was founded on the Principles of Separation of Church and State, so it shouldn't matter that the majority of the voters are Catholic - our leaders should do what's right from a purely secular stand point. The fact that "In God We Trust" was added onto our money and "Under God" onto our pledge would have sickened our Founding Fathers.
KyoraMishiso 2 years ago
That's a little dishonest. Just because it sickens you does nothing to our founding fathers. Communism, on the other hand, that would sicken our founding fathers. the "separation of church and state" was not even used until 100 years after the constitution was ratified, and not really settled until 1948. And taking a secular point of view when it comes to lawmaking is nearly impossible. What's right for you is invariably wrong to someone else. What, or who, then is the moral compass?
thereprieve 2 years ago
Oh, and I don't think we're seen as a Christian Nation, we're highly regarded throughout the world as a melting pot of all religions, races, sexes, creeds, etc.
Help me to understand something, if we elected a gay person to congress, would it be fair to say that they would have a different view of "right and wrong" as opposed to say a muslim? Also, our money can say whatever it wants, it pretty much privately owned now anyways. That's why we have debit cards ;-)
thereprieve 2 years ago
i think i completely agree. and im a christian,right wing, whatever you wanna call it. ive got a video about it(read description) i think abortion should be prescribed in cases of danger to the mother, but no other reason like "accidents"
Johnwaynenorris 3 years ago
Why not make walk-in abortions illegal? And make it so you have to get a court order for an abortion. In the case of a rape, the mom's life being in danger, or she is totally homeless and out of money.
I don't see the point in killing a baby just because you don't want it. If the mom wasn't raped, then it is the parents fault. Not the kids. THEY screwed up, and they shouldn't kill somone for no good reason besides saying simply that "they don't want it."
Sonix202 3 years ago
2. Metabolism.
That is what it is doing with the nutrition from the mother. Kind of utilizing that energy pretty well.
3. Growth and development:
Do I need to explain this....?
4. Homeostasis
You bet. If it didn't, well, it would die..... :0
5. Response to Environment:
It would responed possitively to the mother eating healthy, and negatively to her smoking pot, don't you think?
Sonix202 3 years ago
"A fetus isn't alive......." (In the description and the video)
Ok, have you even taken biology? Do you know when something is considered alive? Or are you pulling this out of your ass? I go with the ladder.
To be considered alive, things need to have these five properties:
1. Reproduce. (The poetential, or past potential to reproduce in your life span. The fetus would grow up and could reproduce). I mean, they can't then, but first graders are living right?
Sonix202 3 years ago
I liked it but found one flaw. Separation of church and state is dead. Dead as the aborted babies (too much?). If separation of church and state was not dead then there would be gay marriage, churches would pay taxes, and abortion wouldn't be an issue.
toastknight 3 years ago
Separation of Church and State isn't dead.
I mean, sure, it's unconscious and being gang-raped in the alley, but it's alive.
Zekkron 3 years ago
sarmariebear 3 years ago
Don't show us your tits, please.
DeNaturaSonorum1 3 years ago
...
No.
STFU.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
hey don't label all christians as anti choice. i support a woman's right to choose an abortion. yes it is a sin but we can't make laws based on what the bible says. the belief that a fetus equals a full human is a religious belief not a scientific one. we need to work towards turning our society away from abortion not outlawing it.
leiapeison 3 years ago
I know. I just can't help but think they are because ever anti-choicer I know is Christian.
I prefer to call 'Pro-life' in the same thing George Carlin did - 'Anti-women'.
May his Noodliness rest his soul.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
There isn't even a religious basis for opposing abortion, at least not for Christians.
Exodus 21:22-25 treats accidentally causing a miscarriage as a property crime.
Leviticus 27:6 and Numbers 3:15 assigns no value to infants younger than a month old, nor do they recognize young infants as human beings.
The oft-quoted fragment of Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee..." only means that God had pre-ordained Jeremiah as a prophet, not that life begins at conception.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
In short, there may indeed be good reasons to oppose legalized abortion; Christianity is not one of them.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
as a suggestion, maybe you should have put a pic in your video of what most aborted feotuses look like. Seriously they aren't even human like yet so why consider them as important as a human or even more important than a human women? Clump of cells with the same level of life as a tumor don't deserve the same treatment as a infant.
These pro-life Christians should go fuck themselves, seriously, we don't give a shit about your bible so why should we have to abide by it?
Teamrocketgg 3 years ago
They arn't human yet?! That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
If they arn't human, then explain why they carry the same genetic instructions as you and I, and whose proteins are being contructed throughout the nine month span of time. Fact is, they are the same as you and I, only smaller and easier to take advantage of.
Keep feeding your self a delusional falsehood.
owtnithgir 3 years ago
He didn't say they weren't humans. He said they weren't human like.
Which, I agree. Fetuses could be like any animal.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
nothing like fucking up my phrase, douche. I said they aren't HUMAN LIKE, you know, lack limbs and organs?! Also if we want to get into technical terms a tumor also shares the DNA of the recipient as far as I know.
By your conclusion, a tumor is a human and thus should not be "killed".
Again go fuck yourself!
Teamrocketgg 3 years ago
The only people who supported slavery were free. The only people who support abortion were born.
You're a dumbass!
IntelligentDesign00 3 years ago
is a parasitic twin human?
busymartian 3 years ago
I think women need to close their legs. Most women sleep around way too much and abuse means of birth control. Why should an innocent child have to be butchered because some skank needed to have sex?
And if a women is so desperate to get rid of the baby and turns to knock-off means of abortion, so be it--it's her personel choice.
The only time I accept abortion is when a mother's life is at stake, or in the case of rape.
owtnithgir 3 years ago
That's part of it, sure, I guess.
But no.
It's not all of the problem. And men are partly responsible too, the horny bastards.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
You're not as smart as you think you are. I've listened to several of your videos and Desertphile's recommendation of you actually has harmed my opinion of him.
brazensteel 3 years ago
You may think that.
And I'd probably agree.
Go on and dislike me if you want, but don't dislike Desertphile for recommending me.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
Yay! I think we should know by now that the only thing we do by outlawing civil liberties is create a new class of 'criminals', it doesn't detract from said neccesity or pleasure. A woman is master of her body, and those stuffy congressment/senators (my fav part of the vid btw) should keep thier noses out of other ppls crotches plz...
vegassilenttype 3 years ago
"keep their noses out of other ppls crotches"
...
4 points, right there, mate.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
I uh...acidentally deleted Eldxale when I meant to respond to it. He wrote:
"You lost me on "necessary evil." Those words don't go together. If it is evil, it is unnecessary."
Murder is an evil, no matter who it is.
Hitler was even more evil.
Hitler deserved to die.
That is, to me, a necessary evil.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
The main problem is that there's millions of abortions, for non life related issues such as higher wages. There are many women who are pro-life. In a CBS poll 40% of men wanted abortion generally available and 37% of women did. The politicians shouldn't voice on it since they're vote grabbing bastards, so I agree. To my knowledge there have been no incidents of coat hanger abortions ever, and less than 100 deaths a year from back alley abortions in the 1970s. Eh.
Ytaker 3 years ago
"In a CBS poll 40% of men wanted abortion generally available....."
Fuck what men want: until they can get pregnant, their opinions on the subject are moot.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Men raise babies. Men pay for child care. Our taxes pay for hospitals. A man could have the wellbeing of a girl at heart. In so much as women care what men think, of course they have an opinion. I mean, as a practical manner, if a man was going to dump a woman because if she had an abortion, and she loved him, his opinion would obviously matter to her. Conversely, if he said he would accompany her to the clinic, hold her hand through it, that could encourage her.
Ytaker 3 years ago
As I said before, men have an opinion, and they cn.
But there opinions should get 1 vote, where as women's opinion should get too.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
That would be anti-democratic. Firstly, many men have far more knowledge about babies than women. A child doctor would be far more able to handle the issues than the average mother because they have both the science and the experience of talking to lots of mothers and fathers. It'd be hard to work out who's best qualified, and I wouldn't trust white men in parliament to work it out. The woman has the greater claim since the baby is in her belly, but voteswise- wouldn't work.
Ytaker 3 years ago
It doesn't matter. You can know everything there is to know about the pain of having your nails stapled to a table, but until you've actually experienced it, it seems a bit silly to go saying "Oh, that's nothing," or, "oh, this is what I'd do."
Now, I'm not saying bearing children is like stapling your hand to a table. But its the same principle in that, in the same way you'd be afraid of some creep about to whose tied your hands down and has a giant staple gun, women (con.)
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
can get emotionally unstable while carrying children because of hormones. And until you've been pregnant, then you've got nothing to say on the actual processes of it and what the women's eventual decision is.
Legally, this means the government should stay out of abortions, and that in the end, it's the women's choice weather or not to abort the baby. Her husband can support one decision or the other, but in the end he shouldn't make her feel forced to have the child or not. That's cruel.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
Women should make a decision based on lots of thought, not an emotional whim. Men know what the outcomes of a abortion is, and what women think generally during it, and thus they can add their opinion. Banning men from making a decision in general would be stupid. You don't have any experience of pregnancy, yet you have an opinion, and you don't have the experiences of any other women. Just word of mouth. Should only abortion women be able to decide the law?
Ytaker 3 years ago
An emotional whim IS a thought. Let's say you're given a choice - 50$ if you tear off your own fingernails, or walk away. If you're thinking with pure logic, then it makes sense. Your fingernails will grow back (so long as they've not been ripped off before), and you get 50$. No real loss for you and you gain 50$. And yet, a lot of people would say no, because they don't want to go threw that pain. Is that wrong?
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
Now, you may argue they're separate things because one's a life and the other isn't. But as I said, life isn't alive until it's born. And I'm not saying MEN shouldn't decide. I'm saying men who don't give a shit about women shouldn't decide. It's one thing for a loving husband to tell his wife she shouldn't get an abortion when she wants one. Usually that's the better idea - NOT to get one. And other perspectives can be healthy. But the husband can't ever truly know what his wife is going (cont)
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
through. He can study up on it, and know all there is to know, but you can't know anything until you experience it - and he can't truly know what his wife is thinking. The only one who can is the wife. And the final decision is hers. And Conservative, Evangelical nutjobs who think feminism is a horrible movement encouraging women to take over the world (Not kidding there, either) shouldn't be the ones in charge of what is, in the end, entirely the women's choice.
KyoraMishiso 3 years ago
The government has to decide whether to fund the practise, fund it, have it in schools, and junk. They also may disagree whether it is a life, particularly in late term abortions, a lot of people do too, as about 60% of people want tighter laws, and so may be oblidged to protect life. So, in general terms, some laws are needed. if you assume that the baby has under 1/10,000th worth of a human, as you implied, then you'd believe the choice is generally permissible. People who don't would disagree
Ytaker 3 years ago
The purpose of money is to increase you pleasure, so the pain of it can be taken into account. Plus you'd have risk of infection, be uglier, not be able to do a lot of tasks that need nails. An emotional whim would be like if you were worried about your financial future, and so accepted the offer despite the crappiness. in terms of abortion, it'd be getting an abortion because you were at that moment feeling crap. Hormones messing up your mind don't make you better qualified.
Ytaker 3 years ago
Missed this comment. So, would you say that only people who have had their hands stapled to the table should be tortured? Maybe poll everyone on whether they would want to be tortured if they were planning a dangerous act that would hurt America, and if they said no, not torture them? Regardless, I, who have never had my head thrust into a toilet and been swore at, or told to say I'm a terrorist or I'll have my nails ripped out, can say I know enough about the pain to say no to torture.
Ytaker 3 years ago
"But (their) opinions should get 1 vote...."
Why? If they want a say in curbing reproduction, they can keep their dicks to themselves.
Desertphile 3 years ago
"Men raise babies."
"Men pay for child care."
"Our taxes pay for hospitals."
"A man could have the wellbeing of a girl at heart."
That has nothing to do with men having any legitimate say on the subject of abortion.
Etc. Etc. If men don't want girls and women to have abortions, or if men want girls and women to have abortions, they can just go fuck themselves---- it's none of their goddamn business.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Men have the ability to empathize with women and thus can understand a measure of their pain and hurt. Also the financial consequences of extended periods of absense are readily understandable by men. The woman knows her own circumstances better than others, but men and non pregnant women can help with the issues. Also, the issues of late term abortions and women dying, and prenatal protection of babies are important for all.
Ytaker 3 years ago
"Men have the ability to empathize with women and thus can understand a measure of their pain and hurt."
Yes, I know. That has nothing to do with men having any legitimate say on the subject of abortion.
Desertphile 3 years ago
If you can understand an issue, you can have a say on it. Say, with the iraqi war. You're not a soldier, or a citizen, but that doesn't mean you should be censored if you say in a poll or a referendum that you not yay clusterbomb. You are indirectly affected by the issue, in that you have to pay money, and that other people's view of you is affected, and can care. Should I be arguing on the subject of abortion empathy, or the philosophical correctness of democracy as opposed to dictatorship?
Ytaker 3 years ago