1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Alabama outlaws abortion . . .

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by stockhausen, May 17, 2019.

  1. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,523


    Kind of hard when most (All) legal codes around the world are essentially originally based on religious teachings. Are you suggesting that All laws based originally on our "Ten Commandments" should be abolished? :p

    As I said earlir. I am neutral on abortion, I just wish people would argue the position honestly instead of hiding behind the sophistry that because embryos are very small, they are not alive.

    As I also said, I am curious as to individuals parameters for acceptability for parents killing their children.

    The above would suggest that you, at least, consider lack of money a justifiable reason for parents to do so! :D
     
  2. Thecaferacer

    Gangster

    Joined: Feb 3, 2019

    Posts: 480

    The law is correct in this situation and has every type of offence to cover all situations of sexual assault. It's incredibly simple - a penis entering a vagina, mouth or anus without consent. A surgically reconstructed penis also counts for the equality stakes out there.

    The dictionary definition fails to define what sexual intercourse is which would play havoc with any discussion around the subject of sexual assault.
     
  3. Jumper118

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2012

    Posts: 4,807

    Location: Leeds

    i disagree.
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,895

    No, he's just suggested that religion has no place in government - that's a perfectly valid view and doesn't imply that he's against say laws about stealing or murder etc... that may or may not have historically been.

    Well quote those posts then. The question of whether or not something is alive is dependent on the definitions you chose and can in this case be opinion based, it is rather irrelevant. I mean you could argue that sperm are alive, I doubt it would stop many on this board from fapping. I'd assume the opinion being offered is more along the lines that because embryos are basically a bag of cells or a very primitive, tiny baby shaped thing that isn't a foetus yet then they're ok with destroying it if the pregnancy is unwanted - though you'd be better off quoting the actual post in question in order to both allow the poster to respond and to avoid a pointless argument against a position that might not have been made or intended.

    Wat???
     
  5. Colonel_Klinck

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 3, 2007

    Posts: 727

    Location: London, UK

    Wait sorry what? The reason a woman can't rape a man under UK law is because it's not possible. Unless she has some talent with prostate massage she can't force a man to get an erection and then overpower him and force the act. I'm actually amazed anyone is even trying to compare someone manipulating someone into/in a relationship with the violent act that is rape and then say that the woman would probably use more violence in that act. I'm actually staggered someone could think like that.

    Purposely ruining contraception to get pregnant is a terrible thing to do. It still does not compare to rape. I'm seriously doubting you know anyone who has been raped and have seen first hand what it does to that person. Someone getting pregnant in an underhand way isn't in any way comparable to rape.
     
  6. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,612

    I’m just saying that rape and sexual assault should simply be the same. The distinction is frankly pointless.

    It doesn’t reduce it’s awfulness in any way.
     
  7. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,895

    I dunno - you do realise that rape can occur even after sex has been consented to? Like say a woman consenting to sex but not wanting the guy to cum inside her for example... if he then ignores that counts as rape.

    So surely a woman putting a hole in a condom ergo trying to get a guy to cum inside her when he's specifically trying to avoid it/hasn't consented to do that is rather similar to that? If not then why not?
     
  8. Colonel_Klinck

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 3, 2007

    Posts: 727

    Location: London, UK

    If a woman says stop at any point for whatever reason during sex and the guy carries on then yes its rape. You are forcing yourself on an unwilling person, regardless if they were willing 5 seconds beforehand, they aren't now.

    Every time you have sex there is a risk of pregnancy unless the man has had the chop or the woman has had a hysterectomy. The risk may be small if you're using a condom or she is on the pill but there is still a risk. You've excepted that risk when you have sex. Having sex isn't an expectance that you might be raped if you change your mind and you're a woman though is it. Putting a hole in a condom isn't rape. Some men also put holes in condoms to try and get their girlfriend/wife pregnant. That isn't rape either, its deceitful and a terrible thing to do to someone else but it isn't rape.
     
  9. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,895

    This isn't about saying stop though it was about what is permitted - the woman doesn't necessarily know what has happened there until after it has happened.

    Yes you've accepted the risk of pregnancy though contraceptives failing.

    The point was that it was equivalent, under UK law a man can't be raped by a woman.

    Why not? If a woman says you can't cum inside them and you do(deliberately) then it is rape... likewise a guy might slip a condom off during sex... that is rape. As already pointed out rape isn't just about a woman saying no and the man carrying on, it can also involve not having permission to do certain things.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  10. Lord-Jaffa

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 29, 2004

    Posts: 5,379

    Location: UK

    This isnt true at all, do you honestly believe what you posted here? i'll steal this quote from wikipedia:
    "A common societal belief is that a male must be aroused if he gets an erection or has an orgasm, therefore that means that they are willing and enjoying any sexual activity. Roy J. Levin and Willy Van Berlo wrote in an article in the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine that slight genital stimulation or stress can create erections "even though no specific sexual stimulation is present". An erection does not mean that the men consent to sex. Males can get erections even in traumatic or painful sexual situations.

    Men have woken up before to find a woman riding them, this is rape, although I'd hazard most guys dont see it this way, and the law doesnt either. Imagine this scenario the other way around and see the hypocrisy.
     
  11. enkoda

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 3, 2010

    Posts: 1,415

    Location: Hants, UK

    You don't seem to understand much about female reproductive cycles, or sex. I don't think GCSE biology is your strong point, I wouldn't put it down as one of your options if I were you.
    Maybe it's as simple as that to you, but having been through the trauma of abortion with someone and seeing how utterly heartbreaking it was for her to reach that decision, labelling her a "child killer" shows how contemptible some people really are, completely devoid of any compassion or understanding.
     
  12. Jumper118

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2012

    Posts: 4,807

    Location: Leeds

    You don't need a gcse in biology to know that killing other people is bad. Also I just checked and somehow I managed to get a B in biology, didn't take it at a level though. Most humans naturally don't want to kill each other l, but for some reason some people have dehumanised and normalised the killing of children. Its incredibly backwards and messed up. It's literally like double think.

    I'm sure killing your own child is very traumatic. Why anyone would do it unless their life is in danger is beyond me. There is no compassion in killing an innocent person before they have even been born it's absolutely disgusting.
     
  13. The Geezer

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 13, 2010

    Posts: 1,969

    I’ve noticed how you use language to legitimise your argument by calling embryos and foetus “children”.

    The late term argument was put forward by Trump at a rally where he claimed babies are being born (full term births) and the doctor and mother discuss whether to keep it alive. This was his argument for banning abortions. As usual it was a Trump LIE, there is zero evidence supporting this story.

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trump-repeats-falsely-doctors-mothers-decid/
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  14. Werewolf

    Commissario

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 27,475

    Location: Panting like a fiend

    Yup

    It's basically the decision do you take massively invasive and painful measures to prolong the life of a baby that is never going to survive long term, so it can live a few hours/days in distress, or let it die relatively peacefully.

    I know which I'd prefer, and it's not the one that prolongs the pain and suffering just because it's possible.
     
  15. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,523

    And pro-abortionists legitimize their position by arguing that it is acceptable to kill a developing fetus/Embryo because it isn't really a person.

    Each to their own as it were

    I have already stated my position. It is not about "Alive" as such. It is about the creation point for a new identifiasble and unique individual.

    Well, People certainly seem to think that a mother not wishing to give birth to a "Rape" baby is acceptable reason for an abortion.

    By implication, the post I commented on suggested that not being able to afford to raise a child was also justification.

    Would not wanting to have, say, a mixed-race baby (After say a consensual one night stand for instance) be considered acceptable, Or a Baby that was screened and found to carry a "Gay Gene"

    Or how about a "Mensa" couple who discovered that the child was only going to be "Average"

    Or whatever? Which reasons are acceptable and which are not?
     
  16. mrmucker

    Gangster

    Joined: May 1, 2019

    Posts: 146

    So if someone has IVF and freezes fertilised eggs which are then later discarded then you consider them “person” killers?
     
  17. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,523

    If somebody had some IVF embryos frozen for the future and somebody else destroyed them, would you consider them to be "Just Tissue"?

    (Not sure what the current legal status is actually)

    In any case, this is really a side issue to allow people to hide the fact from themselves that they are killing unwanted "children" by using Sophistic arguments that its OK because they aren't really people.

    Me, I am fine with eugenics/whatever.

    My Edwardian Grand-mama introduced me to the concept of the "Sink Test" (Common when she had been a young woman) over 40 years ago.

    But consider this real-life scenario.

    And older Woman is pregnant.

    She is concerned about Downs, and is willing to have an abortion if the test proves positive.

    The trouble is, the traditional diagnostic test (Amniocentesis) is invasive and carries a high risk of causing a miscarrige. From what I have read, the risk of miscarriage is actually highr than getting a positive result from the test (So there is a greater risk of miscarrying a health child than getting a positve result on a sick one)

    Now, with this in mind, and bearing in mind that one has already decided that a child carrying Downs would be killed.

    Why not wait until after the child is born, then perform the test, and then kill it if the test confirms the condition.

    This does not affect the outcome if the test is positive and avoids the risk of miscarrying an otherwise healthy child.

    If the pro-abortionists are happy with killing a Downs baby before it is born, why are they not happy to kill it afterwards?

    To my mind there is really no ethical diference between the two scenarious (And I actually have less of an issue with the latter one than I do with the former one really since the latter does not put an otherwise healthy child at risk)

    As I have said all along, I am not anti-abortion. I am anti Hypocrisy and self-delusion.
     
  18. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 11,196

    Location: Gloucestershire

    All reasons are acceptable, however distasteful.
     
  19. VincentHanna

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2013

    Posts: 17,720

    Science to the rescue: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/downs-syndrome-test-condition-disappear-c-of-e-warns
     
  20. enkoda

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 3, 2010

    Posts: 1,415

    Location: Hants, UK

    Are you sure you're not getting confused between abortions and US school kids being killed in mass shootings, which has also dehumanised and normalised the killing of children to such a point that the right to own a gun is more important than children's lives?

    Nice to see you can't draw a distinction between women having abortions and child killers like Ian Brady.
    If you want to play the blame game, then we didn't kill our child, the doctor performing the abortion did.