Abortion

Red the Bear said:
My language was probably to strong on that one, the better way ro say it is that I believe whenever a person has sex he should also consider the repercussions , having sex is a choice its neither a right or an entitlement, in fact sex by the most basic facts of nature was intended to be for procreation , the whole change of attitude towards it is due to the sex revolution and effective means of contraception, so I feel whenever your choosing to do it , consider the outcomes.

The nature of life as you said could become shady and enshrined in semantics, so the best way in my opinion is to consider life beginning at conception , better to take no risks when life is involved in my opinion. (Potential for life could be dubious as a spertm has potential for life which i disagree with but embryo has a developed DNA distinct from others , thats pretty solid in my opinion ).

It doesn’t necessarily have to be dystopian, better to let them incubate grow and have a relatively normal life in an orphanage than to kill them off.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree completely on the issue of a sex. I can't agree that it was intended to be for anything as I don't believe in intelligent design. However, you can't deny that sex is pleasurable so it's not just for procreation. Also sex and intimacy are very important to us being happy, healthy, functioning human beings.

You still seem to coming at it from the angle that abortions are caused by careless people or are widely being used as a form of contraception. Granted earlier what I said was anecdotal but is there any evidence to back up that claim?

I wasn't saying really saying that it was shady or down to semantics. I was saying we already have a lot of information and was wondering what you meant by life. To me, a foetus in the first trimester doesn't meet the criteria. For clarity, I'm against late-term abortions unless the mother's life is at risk or in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality.

I suspect you may find very little appetite to pay for the non-matrix incubators and orphanages via taxes even from those who are pro-life.
 
Last edited:
Red the Bear said:
Not everything you don't like is sexism, I never once resorted name calling but you seem to act otherwise.
I don't care what a woman wants to do with her life its not my concern but I don't think terminating life is one of their rights , that simple.
The sexist angle doesn't stick either , I believe its a two way street, man have responsibilities as well , its already enshrined in law , if a woman chooses to keep the baby the man should pay for its upbringing not too bad.

Also for you information I in effect practice bo relegion.
Click to expand...
It isn't name calling but simply a statement of fact that your opinion is wildly sexist. Such a sexist opinion can't be called anything else no matter how you justify it. A man thinking it is ok to legislate to remove a woman's control of her own body is about as sexist as it gets.

Legalising financial support from the male in the equation doesn't make it any less sexist BTW. A woman is still being commanded what to do with her body by law.

It matters not if conception was intended. This is about a women's right to self determination. Exactly why societies should be secular. The moment of conception (which isn't exactly a single moment anyway, even if you could define what a moment was) is just another biological process unless you determine it to be otherwise due to a religious belief.

If that is your religious then (if you were a woman) don't get an abortion, but don't push your religion on 50% of the population.
 
Last edited:
Withnail said:
Well I disagree completely on the issue of a sex. I can't agree that it was intended to be for anything as I don't believe in intelligent design. However, you can't deny that sex is pleasurable so it's not just for procreation. Also sex and intimacy are very important to us being happy, healthy, functioning human beings.

You still seem to coming at it from the angle that abortions are caused by careless people or are widely being used as a form of contraception. Granted earlier what I said was anecdotal but is there any evidence to back up that claim?

I wasn't saying really saying that it was shady or down to semantics. I was saying we already have a lot of information and was wondering what you meant by life. To me, a foetus in the first trimester doesn't meet the criteria. For clarity, I'm against late-term abortions unless the mother's life is at risk or in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality.

I suspect you may find very little appetite to pay for the non-matrix incubators and orphanages via taxes even from the pro-choice crowd.
Click to expand...
I said that with regards to quite the contrary, based on a darwinian standpoint , life must go on so species must procreate so it must be pleasurable so they'd be enticed to do so, that was my line of reasoning that I think I read in my old biology books but obviously I'm not a biologists so I might be wrong on this.

You mean pro life? Yeah I suppose it would be hard to back your talk as few would do so, but it's still worth a try and we're far off from a matrix like incubation reality anyway.
 
I say let all the women under 60 (who are still able to get pregnant) have a vote. Men should stay the feck out of this discussion. This is how I really feel even though I understand it doesn't work like that.
 
I made the rash and emotional choice of inserting my opinions in here and frankly I was wrong, a football forum is probably not the best place to discuss such a sensitive subject matter and it already has decended to name calling and such , the opinions on the matter are deeply ingrained and unlikely to be subject to change due to some discussion with a random man on the internet.

This would be my last post in this thread before it gets more toxic and goes out of control.

Have a good day(or night).
 
Red the Bear said:
I made the rash and emotional choice of inserting my opinions in here and frankly I was wrong, a football forum is probably not the best place to discuss such a sensitive subject matter and it already has decended to name calling and such , the opinions on the matter are deeply ingrained and unlikely to be subject to change due to some discussion with a random man on the internet.

This would be my last post in this thread before it gets more toxic and goes out of control.

Have a good day(or night).
Click to expand...
It’s not to late to delete your posts, mate. We all make mistakes.
 
Red the Bear said:
I said that with regards to quite the contrary, based on a darwinian standpoint , life must go on so species must procreate so it must be pleasurable so they'd be enticed to do so, that was my line of reasoning that I think I read in my old biology books but obviously I'm not a biologists so I might be wrong on this.

You mean pro life? Yeah I suppose it would be hard to back your talk as few would do so, but it's still worth a try and we're far off from a matrix like incubation reality anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah I meant pro-life, sorry.

I'm still not sure it's the best terminology. Sex is pleasurable and can lead to the propagation of the species. I can't really read anything more into it than that because then we are getting into intelligent design.

However, I'd hold we do have a right to sexual expression and to seek sexual pleasure as long as all parties are consenting adults.
 
Red the Bear said:
I made the rash and emotional choice of inserting my opinions in here and frankly I was wrong, a football forum is probably not the best place to discuss such a sensitive subject matter and it already has decended to name calling and such , the opinions on the matter are deeply ingrained and unlikely to be subject to change due to some discussion with a random man on the internet.

This would be my last post in this thread before it gets more toxic and goes out of control.

Have a good day(or night).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, just as people are perfectly entitled to agree or disagree.
 
Withnail said:
I'm sorry you feel that way. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, just as people are perfectly entitled to agree or disagree.
Click to expand...
It's a very sensitive topic and here like most places on the internet has relatively left leaning tilt naturally so I'm kinda alone on the matter here :lol: , frankly I saw it was getting a bit rancid with aggressive terms being thrown around and threatening to report me and such and frankly I don't think it's worth ruining my relationship with fellow posters over an argument that will neither change their minds or form any meaningful change in reality.

Better to call it quits there.
 
Red the Bear said:
I stand by my opinions just don't think it was appropriate it for a place such as this, that's all.
Click to expand...

Then you should be able to defend them.

Calling an opinion sexist is not an insult when that opinion is by definition sexist. If it isn't sexist you can surely give a better reason why it isn't than "because a man will have to pay for the child's upbringing". Maybe it is a good time to think through what you said?
 
The same crazy hypocrite feckless hiding behind religion and freedums to challenge mask mandates and lockdowns, all in the name of libertyyy and now frothing at the mouth at banning abortion. The evangelicals can get to feck if one hand they claim to be upholding gods / biblical law whilst at the same being leading lights on promoting all the excesses of capitalism / nationalism, all the things the new testament argues against.
 
Superden said:
The same crazy hypocrite feckless hiding behind religion and freedums to challenge mask mandates and lockdowns, all in the name of libertyyy and now frothing at the mouth at banning abortion. The evangelicals can get to feck if one hand they claim to be upholding gods / biblical law whilst at the same being leading lights on promoting all the excesses of capitalism / nationalism, all the things the new testament argues against.
Click to expand...

Pharisees of our day. Jesus would whip the shit out of them
 
Red the Bear said:
It's a very sensitive topic and here like most places on the internet has relatively left leaning tilt naturally so I'm kinda alone on the matter here :lol: , frankly I saw it was getting a bit rancid with aggressive terms being thrown around and threatening to report me and such and frankly I don't think it's worth ruining my relationship with fellow posters over an argument that will neither change their minds or form any meaningful change in reality.

Better to call it quits there.
Click to expand...

I thought the reported line was probably a joke, it usually is, but fair enough.
 
Wibble said:
Then you should be able to defend them.

Calling an opinion sexist is not an insult when that opinion is by definition sexist. If it isn't sexist you can surely give a better reason why it isn't than "because a man will have to pay for the child's upbringing". Maybe it is a good time to think through what you said?
Click to expand...
Ahh why I'm getting myself into this...
Look i dont think a woman should be able terminate a pregnancy i think that's infringing on the baby's right to live , i genuinely don't care what a woman chooses to aside from abortion as its not my business and it shouldn't be.
A lot of it is semantics, an adult consenting woman who is well aware of the possibilities of intercourse and knowledgeable about preventive measures has no excuse in my opinion about getting pregnant and then choosing to terminate it like that, its a careless act of irresponsibility and I don't think her choice about her body takes precedence above the fetuses right to live .

Now if you consider that to be sexist, misogynistic or whatever than I guess I am whatever you just said.
 
Withnail said:
I thought the reported line was probably a joke, it usually is, but fair enough.
Click to expand...
I'm not bothered about it that much but he(or she) is clearly passionate about so I figured its not worth damaging my relationship with the fella.
 
I hate that our policies are set by Supreme Court justices rather than elected officials. Judicial review is the biggest fraud in the history of this country, a branch of the government deciding to make itself more powerful than the two branches on which the founding fathers bestowed supremacy.

I hate the outcome here, but from a legal perspective think this is correct. There was no basis in the constitution for Roe. And that’s the problem. When was the last time we had an amendment to the constitution? Our judicial history is such that the same language in the constitution has been cited over and over in Supreme Court decisions as support for contradicting views. The lineage of school busing cases is a prime example where mental gymnastics took the 14th amendment on a seesaw ride between meaning states can’t discriminate on race, to meaning only certain races can be discriminated against if the intent is to help certain other races. The 14th amendment never changed. The results in the court did.

Similarly here, there’s been no change in the constitution. It’s just that 50 years later, a different group of 9 non-elected judges has a different view on a hugely important issue. I’m not sure what the realistic fix is, or if it’s even possible, but the power of the judicial branch undermines the government envisioned by founding fathers. One where policy and laws are set by elected representatives, and not appointed judges. Essentially, if the right number of old lawyers die in a 4 year period, the party in power in the executive branch gets to shape decades of policy without the people having direct influence.
 
Red the Bear said:
Ahh why I'm getting myself into this...
Look i dont think a woman should be able terminate a pregnancy i think that's infringing on the baby's right to live , i genuinely don't care what a woman chooses to aside from abortion as its not my business and it shouldn't be.
A lot of it is semantics, an adult consenting woman who is well aware of the possibilities of intercourse and knowledgeable about preventive measures has no excuse in my opinion about getting pregnant and then choosing to terminate it like that, its a careless act of irresponsibility and I don't think her choice about her body takes precedence above the fetuses right to live .

Now if you consider that to be sexist, misogynistic or whatever than I guess I am whatever you just said.
Click to expand...

Reading your posts I think it would be a fair assumption that you believe life is sacred and should be valued and protected, correct?
If so, are you as vehemently against the death penalty? Mass incarceration? Are you an advocate for free and easy access to pre-natal care, healthcare in general? Free meals and housing? Are you excited about donating or paying more in taxes to ensure these things?

I hope you do, and I hope you are as passionate in your advocacy for those items as for the ban on abortion. Claims to value all life while at the same time failing to ensure the dignity of all life is the height of hypocrisy.
 
WI_Red said:
Reading your posts I think it would be a fair assumption that you believe life is sacred and should be valued and protected, correct?
If so, are you as vehemently against the death penalty? Mass incarceration? Are you an advocate for free and easy access to pre-natal care, healthcare in general? Free meals and housing? Are you excited about donating or paying more in taxes to ensure these things?

I hope you do, and I hope you are as passionate in your advocacy for those items as for the ban on abortion. Claims to value all life while at the same time failing to ensure the dignity of all life is the height of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Yes I am.
Already pointed out to being against death penalty in my posts.
I don't find government to be particularly good at what it does and much prefer to donate to a charity of some sort but it's what it is , if the government does all of that and does it properly, yes I won't mind paying a bit more in taxes.
 
Red the Bear said:
Ahh why I'm getting myself into this...
Look i dont think a woman should be able terminate a pregnancy i think that's infringing on the baby's right to live , i genuinely don't care what a woman chooses to aside from abortion as its not my business and it shouldn't be.
A lot of it is semantics, an adult consenting woman who is well aware of the possibilities of intercourse and knowledgeable about preventive measures has no excuse in my opinion about getting pregnant and then choosing to terminate it like that, its a careless act of irresponsibility and I don't think her choice about her body takes precedence above the fetuses right to live .

Now if you consider that to be sexist, misogynistic or whatever than I guess I am whatever you just said.
Click to expand...
I understand your position (although profoundly disagree with it) but I think it's very easy to hold an ideological position about something that doesn't actually have an effect on you as a person. You are dictating the rights of others based on your, no doubt sincere, philosophy. It is state control of people who are not you.
 
Red the Bear said:
I answered that before.
A no abortion at all mentality is noble but won't happen in today's society it would still be a massive improvement overall.

Again most abortions have nothing to do with either rape or endangerment of mother's life framing it that way is dishonest.

Also her choice was when she chooses to have consensual sex with regards to it's outcomes not after.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Red the Bear said:
Ahh why I'm getting myself into this...
Look i dont think a woman should be able terminate a pregnancy i think that's infringing on the baby's right to live , i genuinely don't care what a woman chooses to aside from abortion as its not my business and it shouldn't be.
A lot of it is semantics, an adult consenting woman who is well aware of the possibilities of intercourse and knowledgeable about preventive measures has no excuse in my opinion about getting pregnant and then choosing to terminate it like that, its a careless act of irresponsibility and I don't think her choice about her body takes precedence above the fetuses right to live .

Now if you consider that to be sexist, misogynistic or whatever than I guess I am whatever you just said.
Click to expand...
It’s not a ‘baby,’ in the overwhelming number of cases it’s a non viable mass of cells.

You think that a non viable mass of cells has more rights than the female carrying it?
 
Shame it’s still such a contentious issue over there. You have to have access to safe abortions, or you risk driving them underground.

I’m obviously pro choice although I do think the cut-off is a little bit late. Is it 24 weeks here in the UK? I think I’m right in saying babies have been born at that point before and survived.

Also, and this is a small point I know, but the whole ‘you don’t have a right to tell a woman what she can’t do with her body’ argument has never really made sense to me considering we already do. There’s already legislation doing exactly that - if a woman goes for an abortion at 25 weeks, she’ll be told she can’t have one and must keep the baby to term. There’s loads of good counter points for the pro-lifers, I just never really thought that was one of them.
 
To protect a bunch a cells some people are willing to let countless women die performing illegal abortions. It's infuriating.
 
Wibble said:
It isn't name calling but simply a statement of fact that your opinion is wildly sexist. Such a sexist opinion can't be called anything else no matter how you justify it. A man thinking it is ok to legislate to remove a woman's control of her own body is about as sexist as it gets.

Legalising financial support from the male in the equation doesn't make it any less sexist BTW. A woman is still being commanded what to do with her body by law.

It matters not if conception was intended. This is about a women's right to self determination. Exactly why societies should be secular. The moment of conception (which isn't exactly a single moment anyway, even if you could define what a moment was) is just another biological process unless you determine it to be otherwise due to a religious belief.

If that is your religious then (if you were a woman) don't get an abortion, but don't push your religion on 50% of the population.
Click to expand...
You consider it sexist because it is a man defending the life of the unborn, but there are also women who defend the same.
 
carvajal said:
You consider it sexist because it is a man defending the life of the unborn, but there are also women who defend the same.
Click to expand...

Of course. It is legislating what women can and can't do with their own body. It is by definition incredibly sexist. And none of your business.
 
calodo2003 said:
It’s not a ‘baby,’ in the overwhelming number of cases it’s a non viable mass of cells.

You think that a non viable mass of cells has more rights than the female carrying it?
Click to expand...

The majority that want to ban abortion want to do so because women should be punished for being sexually active without wanting a pregnancy, I am convinced of this. I am 100% certain that if men were the ones being forced to carry a pregnancy a ban on abortion wouldn't even be discussed.
 
Wibble said:
Of course. It is legislating what women can and can't do with their own body. It is by definition incredibly sexist. And none of your business.
Click to expand...
But sexism is undervaluing the opposite sex or making distinctions on the basis of sex. A woman defending life has nothing to do with sexism, and to label a man defending life as sexist is to attempt to denigrate his opinion with a label.
 
@Red the Bear I respect that you're having multiple discussions at once and it's probably getting overwhelming, but I do have one hypothetical that I'd like to ask. Let's say I need a kidney, or a bone marrow transplant, and you're the one person on Earth who I match with. Do you think the government should have the power to force you against your will to undergo those procedures for the sake of my life?
 
carvajal said:
But sexism is undervaluing the opposite sex or making distinctions on the basis of sex. A woman defending life has nothing to do with sexism, and to label a man defending life as sexist is to attempt to denigrate his opinion with a label.
Click to expand...

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on someone's sex. Therefore it is a simple statement of fact and not a label or insult. A woman with the same view is also being sexist. Legal restricting a woman's self determination is inherently sexist. The religious views that such opinions come from are also sexist. Most religions are also inherently sexist anyway. Sexism and religion should play no part in our law making.
 
Denis79 said:
The majority that want to ban abortion want to do so because women should be punished for being sexually active without wanting a pregnancy, I am convinced of this. I am 100% certain that if men were the ones being forced to carry a pregnancy a ban on abortion wouldn't even be discussed.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
Cascarino said:
@Red the Bear I respect that you're having multiple discussions at once and it's probably getting overwhelming, but I do have one hypothetical that I'd like to ask. Let's say I need a kidney, or a bone marrow transplant, and you're the one person on Earth who I match with. Do you think the government should have the power to force you against your will to undergo those procedures for the sake of my life?
Click to expand...

Judith Thomson's compelling argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
 
Wibble said:
Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on someone's sex. Therefore it is a simple statement of fact and not a label or insult. A woman with the same view is also being sexist. Legal restricting a woman's self determination is inherently sexist. The religious views that such opinions come from are also sexist. Most religions are also inherently sexist anyway. Sexism and religion should play no part in our law making.
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way. I don't think the point is to punish women, but to defend life. It would be sexist if both men and women were able to give life and this measure was only regulated for women.
 
carvajal said:
I don't see it that way. I don't think the point is to punish women, but to defend life. It would be sexist if both men and women were able to give life and this measure was only regulated for women.
Click to expand...
This would hold water if the same people in this country who are the most radical in terms of banning abortion are also fervently against things like free pre-natal care, free meals for children, and universal healthcare. This is not about protecting and defending life, if it was then red states would have the lowest maternal death rates instead of the highest, they would have the best access to healthcare instead of the poorest. This has never, politically, been about life, it has always been about control and votes.
 
carvajal said:
I don't see it that way. I don't think the point is to punish women, but to defend life. It would be sexist if both men and women were able to give life and this measure was only regulated for women.
Click to expand...

That is utter nonsense. If my grandma had balls she would be my grandpa. But that is of course impossible.

Whatever mental gymnastics you try to do to justify such an opinion any such restriction is restricting what only women can do with their bodies, usually based on religious belief. This is (or should be) anathema in a fair, equitable and secular society. In fact women are quite happy (or at least prepared to accept) having their bodies regulated in late pregnancy, but fanatics aren't even happy with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.