The abortion thread pt. 2.

[Versus]

Also, AshleyO posted a video.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Alan

Because racism is included in bias but racism does not include all biases. It's very simple and you guys are looking for something that isn't there.

"Bias" is very light and fluffy. I'm biased against Twilight fans but it doesn't mean I'm oppressive towards Twilight fans.

And again, what's okay with saying that if kids of colour weren't born in the first place they wouldn't be so oppressed?

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Versus

I don't understand how an idea of engineering people isn't inherently racist. It implies that there are aspects of people which are desirable or undesirable, regardless of class or any other socially constructed distinction. It's wrong in a lot of other ways; it lends itself to being sexualist, sexist, racist, ableist, weightist, mentalist... the list goes on.

Was he even talking about sterilization or making sure that people were able to provide a stable environment for a kid before they can have one? (which sounds great at first but is still dumb when you really think of it but not inherently racist). I kind of figured that is what he was talking about due to the comparison to pets as even if you don't qualify to have a pet at the time you could later qualify as your situation improves.

Now if you go with something like age then you would have a hell of a time picking a good age and it really wouldn't be that helpful anyway, sure any 10 year old is not going to be able to raise a child on their own so 10 year olds having kids is bad but there is very little difference in the capabilities of a 16 year old and an 18 year old. Hell there are tons of 18 year olds who should in no way, shape, or form have kids because they just do not have the necessary maturity but the same is true of just about everyone I know under the age of 25 and many up through their 30s so age just really isn't a good factor to use, it would be restrictive but offer no benefit at all.

If you were to go with an economic factor like meeting a basic income requirement or if you were to go with an educational requirement like graduating high school or getting a GED then you have a problem of specific groups being put at a disadvantage to get those things so even if it is not spelled out as such you do still end up with a functioning form of eugenics.

Really the only good way to prevent an abundance of unwanted babies is to make sure that everyone has access to comprehensive sex education and contraception with legal and safe abortions being available if it is needed that way when people are having a child it is because that child is wanted.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Was he even talking about sterilization or making sure that people were able to provide a stable environment for a kid before they can have one?

I don't know what methods he thinks about when he says there should be a way to regulate who can/cannot become parents, but it doesn't really matter. It's possible to say how well a person is at being a parent, but not how well they could be one. It's not something you can place a value on, and to try to is discrimination.

Really the only good way to prevent an abundance of unwanted babies is to make sure that everyone has access to comprehensive sex education and contraception with legal and safe abortions being available if it is needed that way when people are having a child it is because that child is wanted.

Yeah. I think Saya brought me around to it earlier in the thread.

[LaGs sKill]

I am not quite a cretin nor am I in favor of eugenics, even though it will come about. There is a pattern which claims - what we can, we will. I am not in favor of everyone having the possibility to become a parent when so many are unqualified to provide care and safety for themselves. Yet even these forms of regulations, as Solumina asserts, will get out of control.

The government and authorities do not want to pay for having appropriate classroom sizes. They object to paying teachers a liveable income. They are less inclined to provide child care centers. Children are judged as having a problem until they are eleven, twelve and thirteen; then they are viewed as being a problem.

I am also not inclined to trust a group of men to make laws concerning pregnancy and abortion. Or to leave a child's home care in their hands. They would rather build a prison than another school.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by LaGs sKill

I am not in favor of everyone having the possibility to become a parent when so many are unqualified to provide care and safety for themselves.

What constitutes 'care and safety?' I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm illustrating that those are subjective and relative values.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by LaGs sKill

Something should be done to regulate who can and cannot have children. As Neo said "You need a license to keep a dog, or go fishing but anyone can have a child." Unfortunately, whatever system to regulate who can have children will be biased, at least it would in our American Democracy.

Suggesting that people should be dis-allowed to have children because of unfavorable characteristics is part of eugenics. From what you've said so far It seems you rather favor such practices. Simply stating that you are not in favor of eugenics while every other thing you've said screams that you are isn't a terribly honest position to hold.

Originally Posted by LaGs sKill

I am not quite a cretin nor am I in favor of eugenics, even though it will come about. There is a pattern which claims - what we can, we will. I am not in favor of everyone having the possibility to become a parent when so many are unqualified to provide care and safety for themselves. Yet even these forms of regulations, as Solumina asserts, will get out of control.

I'm just curious, who gets to decide who's qualified and who's unqualified to breed? What would be the purpose of regulating such a thing, in your opinion? How would one go about enforcing these regulations?

[LaGs sKill]

There is no program that can be instituted on a state or national level that can describe who is and who is not a candidate to become a parent. There are laws that supposedly serve to protect children from dangerous conditions in their households. The problem here are the laws are seldom put in action. The police do not arrest violent husbands and fathers. Courts would rather keep families together, even the most destructive families, based on what is a relation by blood (DNA).

On the other side, the organizations like Child Protective Services (CPS, California) are under funded and not at all a positive force for the child. Ask someone who works for CASA in your area(California) or a Domestic Violence nonprofit organization in your area. Placing a child with CPS is often the last thing that some Domestic Violence organizations want to do. Some rely on what is termed a "Safe" foster home. These are temporary and operated by people who have the training and compassion to deal with "Problem Children".

Everything has to be done on a case by case basis. Still, something has to be done. I am aware of seventy-five years of documented evidence of what violence in a home does to children. Violence has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion or class membership. People with more money can keep their problems veiled from the public and from the courts. And frequently the terror that children endure is used by the authorities and the media to denigrate a race or an ethnic group.

It really all depends on money. Our conservative powers in America would rather profit from war with a foreign enemy than face the enemy within. So I will continue to work until the pendulum of social responsibility swings the other way to really address and correct the problem.

[Saya]

A more simple solution would be to realize that it takes a village to raise a child. The idea of "this is my house with my brood and its my private domestic life that no one has any business in." Isn't a universal idea and relatively late on the scene of family life.

The isolation we put families in is a nesting ground for abuse. It takes a while for us to see it often, and meanwhile on the inside there's a lot of frustration. When your partner becomes overwhelmed and dumps most of the responsibility on you (as is the case for many women), I get why things like shaking babies happen or even just neglect. I get why abusive partners who exert their power over what they consider their domain think they have the right (that private domestic life that no one has any business in, not even the people in it), is it so surprising? Is it so surprising that society is reluctant to step in since it sold us on the dream of having our castle with our subjects?

I guess this ties in with our earlier discussion, if there was universal child care and support and accessible birth control to anyone who wanted it, wouldn't that be a lot easier than to turn to eugenics or have children starve on account of their father's rights?

[LaGs sKill]

Originally Posted by Saya

I guess this ties in with our earlier discussion, if there was universal child care and support and accessible birth control to anyone who wanted it, wouldn't that be a lot easier than to turn to eugenics or have children starve on account of their father's rights?

That is the answer. A community of people and a universal child care program. We are isolated in or apartments like lemmings in a cage. We ignore yells of terror and anger coming from our neighbors apartment or whisper about it at parties among our friends.

Finally, let us develop some sense of Child's Rights.

[Saya]

Exactly. I don't want kids myself but I wouldn't mind if my extended family or neighbour's kids could come to me if they felt in trouble, but we all feel so suspicious of one another.

[LaGs sKill]

I work with a group of friends. We try to organize a cooperative endeavor.

[Devon]

I don't agree with it at all, I'd never get one.
But who cares about my opinion? It's the person getting it's choice They can do whatever they want.
People honestly need to stop taking away everyone else's rights just 'cuz they do not agree with it.

[Alan]

To play the devil's advocate, it's not as easy as that. By that same logic one can defend the stupid Reagan idea that if a racist business owner wants to deny service to black people we can't just take away their right to deny service.

[Varbane]

When it comes to abortion my opinion tends to fall somewhere in the middle. If they want to abort the baby because they simply don't want one, I do find that offensive and wrong. But, lets say a woman was r-a-p-ed and became pregnant. I could see why an abortion would an option. Mostly because one could never know the effect on someone and there is no way of telling how a woman might react when the baby is born if she is forced to carry it full term. I'd hate to see her carry this child only to abandon it or kill it because the whole ordeal was to much to handle.

Another time where I think abortion should be an option is if there are health issues with the baby that might lead to major long term health conditions. If having the child is going to doom it to a life time of hardship I really don't think its fair to the child. I'd hate to see a child that's in and out of surgery, constantly in pain and can hardly enjoy life because the parents couldn't let the kid go.

[Versus]

That doesn't make any sense. At all. That doesn't put you somewhere in the middle, that puts you in the patriarchal right.

Why is it okay for a woman to get an abortion only in some instances, rather then all of them?

[Versus]

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showth...light=Despanan

I was wondering why this sounded so familiar. Hehe. RELEASE THE KRAKEN.

[Varbane]

Originally Posted by Versus

That doesn't make any sense. At all. That doesn't put you somewhere in the middle, that puts you in the patriarchal right.

Why is it okay for a woman to get an abortion only in some instances, rather then all of them?

It puts me in the middle of a yes or no answer. I quit caring about this whole left or right idea a long time ago. That also goes for politics in general.


The truth is no kid asked to be born, we simply are. I don't think its right to simply abort a child because you don't want it or are "not ready yet." If you want to have sex and you don't want a child (this goes for males also) then you should use protection every time. There is simply no excuse for not using protection to prevent a unwanted child. Its called being responsible for ones actions. Something that frankly a lot of people in a lot instances are not doing.

[Saya]

1. Not everyone has access to birth control.

2. No form of birth control is 100% effective.

3. Some more effective forms of birth control, such as the pill or IUD can be expensive.

4. There is no form of birth control that is fine for everyone, i.e for people who have latex allergies, cannot take hormonal birth control, IUD hurts like hell, etc.

Finally, if something is wrong, why isn't it wrong in all circumstances? What you want to do is punish people for having sex, not protecting the supposed fetus, who is not a child.

[Versus]

RELEASE THE MOTHERFUCKING KRAKEN spooky

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Varbane

It puts me in the middle of a yes or no answer.

Bullshit. You answered the same way virtually every single conservative answers. That's no middle. It's well into the right, which clearly shows the political spectrum serves a purpose because otherwise you'd try to weasel yourself out and pretend that a) the golden mean isn't a fallacy, and b) your opinion even falls into the golden mean.

[Saya]

[Alan]

Hey I just thought of another problem in Varbane's position; I can't believe I didn't see it after what I wrote on my post.
Like a good philosopher, what caught my attention isn't the social or political implications of his opinion, but rather that even as he says he doesn't care about the political spectrum divided into left and right, his claim that his 'opinion tends to fall somewhere in the middle' completely and absolutely presupposes the very left-right divide he opposes.

[Varbane]

We like to think everything is cut and dry, yes or no and such. As much as people like to think issues can be that clearly defined, they never truly are. Why? There is always a grey area. That is the reason why humans have been debating issues like abortion for years with no side truly winning. Its also the reason there will never be a clear winner. You gather 100 people that are for it, I can gather 100 people that are against it and we can go in circles over and over with no clear winner if you want. But, that would be a huge waste of time.

The grey area is brought about through the human ability to think for our self's. And as we all know thinking for our self is one of the things that make us human. If you truly want abortion to be banned or available for everyone in every country and one side of the issue to be the norm you are going to have to strip people of there ability to think for themselves. And in doing so you will be stripping those people that don't agree with you with a large part if not all of there humanity.

Opinions on issues like this are more or less a persons grey area. Even if your opinion seem 100% identical there will always be a grey area. You might not see it but its always there. This is even more true when you factor in the truth that opinions change and can be changed by life experiences.

More or less you are a living grey area, just like every other human walking this earth. Is it a bad thing? Hell no, its what makes us Human. You can disagree with me on issues such as abortion all you want and I'd still go out of my way to feed you if you where hungry and had no food.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Varbane

We like to think everything is cut and dry, yes or no and such. As much as people like to think issues can be that clearly defined, they never truly are. Why? There is always a grey area. That is the reason why humans have been debating issues like abortion for years with no side truly winning. Its also the reason there will never be a clear winner. You gather 100 people that are for it, I can gather 100 people that are against it and we can go in circles over and over with no clear winner if you want. But, that would be a huge waste of time.

Uh, no. The reason we argue about abortion is because we live in a patriarchal society. You know, before the eighties, it was only Catholics who had any issue with it. Oh, it was banned in the 19th century, but mostly to punish the feminists who were asking to be legally people. The eighties, however, was a time for the fundamentalists to rise up against feminism and put women back in their places. They aren't pro-life, they're pro-family, in that everyone is expected to be in heterosexual marriages and have babies.

The grey area is brought about through the human ability to think for our self's. And as we all know thinking for our self is one of the things that make us human. If you truly want abortion to be banned or available for everyone in every country and one side of the issue to be the norm you are going to have to strip people of there ability to think for themselves. And in doing so you will be stripping those people that don't agree with you with a large part if not all of there humanity.

Its like saying being against racism is wrong because people deserve to be racist, so lets get rid of civil rights. The thing about abortion is, YOU DONT HAVE TO GET ONE IF YOU DONT HAVE TO. So aside from killing and maiming many women if abortion is outlawed again, why not just have the choice there so people can PRACTICE thinking for themselves rather than have Cracker von Patriarch think for them?

Opinions on issues like this are more or less a persons grey area. Even if your opinion seem 100% identical there will always be a grey area. You might not see it but its always there. This is even more true when you factor in the truth that opinions change and can be changed by life experiences.

More or less you are a living grey area, just like every other human walking this earth. Is it a bad thing? Hell no, its what makes us Human. You can disagree with me on issues such as abortion all you want and I'd still go out of my way to feed you if you where hungry and had no food.

So you'd tell me I'm a slut and deserve to be burdened with children I didn't want and I'm a cunt for having an abortion, but you'd still feed me if I'm hungry and poor? Wow, you're a saint.