General / Off-Topic Cowardly Gillette Walks it Back

[jasonbarron]

The question throws up some interesting points. Some care so much for the unborn that previously they were willing to kill over the issue by blowing up clinics.

Then you have the weird one of children in the UK & US living under the poverty line. We’ve been aware of that for some time. So let them be born but don’t worry so much if they go to bed hungry at night. If you’re going to say we do care, we don’t care enough because there are millions of them.

At some point the child becomes an adult and we stop caring all together. They can die on the streets of cold or hunger and we tend to blame them. The sanctity of life appears to have an age limit.

I don’t believe anyone has any doubts about the over population of humans on this planet. Yet at one end, some demand all children are born whilst at the other end we fight to save lives, create procedures and medicines to enable us to live longer and longer however (certainly in the UK) we’re alarmingly incapable of providing the care to give those people a comfortable decent life.

Again, the goal seems to be to keep humans alive at any cost even though there are too many of us and from the moment we are born until we die we could live in poverty and we just accept that.


If you want to prevent abortions, which clearly are unwanted pregnancies, the best way would to be to force men to have a vasectomy. It is after all a reversible procedure.

How do you feel about the law telling you what should happen to your body? Remember before you answer, if you’re 100% against abortions, you’re hoping for laws which tell women what they should do with theirs.

I read a great quote about :

Opinions on abortions are like nipples, women’s are more relevant yet all we see are men’s.

(Which obviously I have just contributed to)

It wasn't my intention to steer the conversation into the minefield of rights, Leo just kept questioning me on my core beliefs until it was inevitable that it should come up. But since we're here: you're going to have show me some proof that people on the pro-life side of the aisle don't care about children once they're born, or about people who grow up and wind up living on the streets, because it's either a flat out lie, or a grotesque level of ignorance.

The critical difference in your comparison between a vasectomy and an is that one is an electable surgical procedure that effects exactly one person, the person having the surgery, and the other is a procedure that robs the life of another human being aside from the person electing to have the procedure. Nowhere else in society do we so casually rob the life of another human being without some kind of due process and oversight as we do in the case of : wars of aggression without cassus belli are forbidden; police cannot just shoot someone without an investigation by an oversight committee and eventual trial; doctors cannot simply euthanize patients; a person is not allowed to murder another person for the sake of convenience, etc etc.

Just because a woman happens to be harboring a child shouldn't give her the automatic right to murder it, any more than if she decided to smother it in the weeks following it's birth.

Is there a case to be made for the morning after pill? Of course. A procedure in the case of or incest that amounts to a little over 1% of total abortions? That's an argument I'm willing to hear. But abortions for the sake of convenience that amount to the other nearly 99% of procedures? That's an atrocity that makes the slavery issue pale by comparison, and in my opinion the greatest moral defect facing western civilization today.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

is definitely a thorny subject........ As a man I get little to no say in the matter...... If I get a lady pregnant no matter how much I want that child if she doesnt then tough. IF I dont want that child no matter what I say I have to have it and then pay to support it so tough.

And this is the only way it can work, it may not always be fair but it is how it has to be so long as it is the woman who is the incubator. This IS inequality no 2 ways about it but how else could it possibly work. The choice we get as men is through contraception, but because there is no male pill we often trust the woman, which is not ideal. (wear your wellies or keep it in your pants would be my dads advice)

is a necessary right that a woman should always have imo it isnt harming a child, I dont know at what point my view changes, but logically a 2 week old embryo is no more a child than the contents of a tissue or a ladies tampon each month (sorry to be crude) where as a very late close to 24 weeks is imo too close for comfort. This isnt about being "in favour" of .... there is no being infavour of something like this, but it is a necessary safety net that needs to be there, but is not a decision any decent person would take lightly..

I did once know of a woman who used as a form of contraception, she was 21 or 22 and had had 2 abortions, and worse than that was heavily pregnant a 3rd time and as we lost touch was going private to have one because she had left it too late for NHS (I thought it was the same cut off date for both but she said i was wrong). This is a line which was crossed for me... like i said, i do not know exactly where the line is, its not hard and fast but that is over it for me.

Where I do think we get a really raw deal however is how the law almost consistently sides with the mother when it comes to visitation rights and looking after your child... but that is perhaps even more OT in a thread about razors than .

 

[Stigbob]

It wasn't my intention to steer the conversation into the minefield of rights, Leo just kept questioning me on my core beliefs until it was inevitable that it should come up. But since we're here: you're going to have show me some proof that people on the pro-life side of the aisle don't care about children once they're born, or about people who grow up and wind up living on the streets, because it's either a flat out lie, or a grotesque level of ignorance.

The critical difference in your comparison between a vasectomy and an is that one is an electable surgical procedure that effects exactly one person, the person having the surgery, and the other is a procedure that robs the life of another human being aside from the person electing to have the procedure. Nowhere else in society do we so casually rob the life of another human being without some kind of due process and oversight as we do in the case of : wars of aggression without cassus belli are forbidden; police cannot just shoot someone without an investigation by an oversight committee and eventual trial; doctors cannot simply euthanize patients; a person is not allowed to murder another person for the sake of convenience, etc etc.

Just because a woman happens to be harboring a child shouldn't give her the automatic right to murder it, any more than if she decided to smother it in the weeks following it's birth.

Is there a case to be made for the morning after pill? Of course. A procedure in the case of or incest that amounts to a little over 1% of total abortions? That's an argument I'm willing to hear. But abortions for the sake of convenience that amount to the other nearly 99% of procedures? That's an atrocity that makes the slavery issue pale by comparison, and in my opinion the greatest moral defect facing western civilization today.

I'd go with a medical experts definition of when a foetus becomes a human being. Pre heartbeat, nerve endings and brain activity I'd say it doesn't qualify. No idea where they actually set the bar though.

However I'd also say a lack of sex-ed/religious pressure leads to more late term abortions since people are more likely to hide or simply not recognise what's actually happening. So again the best approach to reducing abortions and especially late term abortions is society being pro-choice and education.

 

[askavir]

Her body, her pregnancy, her choice. It should be that simple and without stigma.

While that slogan sounds so very easy and simple, there is an exception where it's really not. I'm all for liberty of choice (including abortions) in the early stages of pregnancy. I voted for rights in my country referendum, that allowed in the early stages (don't remember anymore how many weeks exactly).

But if a woman wanted to do an when the pregnancy was already 7 or 8 months along, and the infant is already fully formed, moving and kicking, it's no longer just her body any more. I don't think anyone believes that a child magically become alive just at the exact moment it comes out of a vagina. While I couldn't care less about what women or men do with their own bodies, I do care when we are no longer talking about a forming fetus, but a living child. At this late stage, if she doesn't want to keep it, then give it up for adoption.

 

[jasonbarron]

While that slogan sounds so very easy and simple, there is an exception where it's really not. I'm all for liberty of choice (including abortions) in the early stages of pregnancy. I voted for rights in my country referendum, that allowed in the early stages (don't remember anymore how many weeks exactly).

But if a woman wanted to do an when the pregnancy was already 7 or 8 months along, and the infant is already fully formed, moving and kicking, it's no longer just her body any more. I don't think anyone believes that a child magically become alive just at the exact moment it comes out of a vagina. While I couldn't care less about what women or men do with their own bodies, I do care when we are no longer talking about a forming fetus, but a living child. At this late stage, if she doesn't want to keep it, then give it up for adoption.

Once again I find myself closely aligned with your viewpoint.

 

[Havvk]

is definitely a thorny subject........ As a man I get little to no say in the matter...... If I get a lady pregnant no matter how much I want that child if she doesnt then tough

Best way to avoid that is just don't have "fun in the sheets". Easy. This goes for both men and women.

 

[jasonbarron]

My wife made an effort to talk me into getting a vasectomy to which I always countered: what if there's a pandemic that kills all men on the planet and leaves me as the sole male survivor, wouldn't it be my obligation to stay intact "just in case?" She finally just gave up

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

But if a woman wanted to do an when the pregnancy was already 7 or 8 months along, and the infant is already fully formed, moving and kicking, it's no longer just her body any more

The UK limit is 24 weeks without a life threatening - to mum or child - condition.

I suspect this term was made during a time when 24 weeks was certainly not viable and could never survive..... however now, it is cutting it much to close to the bone and imo should be reconsidered (without a medical reason). Again I am not qualified to say what that date is, but we have pretty good education now and imo any person should know without a doubt they are pregnant and as such be able to make a decision before this date... I would say a cut of of somewhere around 16-20 weeks would sit better with me (and if i am honest closer to 16)

 

[Stigbob]

The UK limit is 24 weeks without a life threatening - to mum or child - condition.

I suspect this term was made during a time when 24 weeks was certainly not viable and could never survive..... however now, it is cutting it much to close to the bone and imo should be reconsidered (without a medical reason). Again I am not qualified to say what that date is, but we have pretty good education now and imo any person should know without a doubt they are pregnant and as such be able to make a decision before this date... I would say a cut of of somewhere around 16-20 weeks would sit better with me

I just had a look myself as well. The majority of Doctors are "uncomfortable" with the current cut-off due to the reasons you gave.

Definitely a hell of a lot later than I'm comfortable with. Some suggestions of halfing it to twelve weeks.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Best way to avoid that is just don't have "fun in the sheets". Easy. This goes for both men and women.

I would say sod that...... it is harmless fun and if done responsibly has no downsides...... I prefer have fun but be careful is more practical.

 

[Arry]

tbh, it is for many people. a vast majority where i live. legal status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#/media/File:Abortion_Laws.svg

the problem persists mostly in underdeveloped countries, or else in ultraconservative minorities. debate was a thing when i was a kid but that was settled a decade or two ago, the recent comeback i liken more to neoconservatism and more related to headlines and social media campaigning than anything else. like, dunno, creationism and flatearthery? i see that as natural ideological counter-reactions, although the rise in authoritarianism is worrying it would affect much more than the views on .

I understand that some states in the U.S. have or are trying, to make it illegal again.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

My sons mother had a child before we met and he was born around 24 weeks if not a little earlier. He's happy and healthy.

wow well that underlines my position then. 24 weeks is too late... Blimey though healthy at possibly pre 24 weeks, that is one lucky lad as i cant imagine there are many who fair so well.

 

[Havvk]

I would say sod that...... it is harmless fun and if done responsibly has no downsides...... I prefer have fun but be careful is more practical.

Yea then next thing you know you're either paying 18 years child support or having your potential child wisked out with a coat hangar.

If you can't keep it in your pants, you better be ready for some...accidents.

 

[Stigbob]

Yea then next thing you know you're either paying 18 years child support or having your potential child wisked out with a coat hangar.

If you can't keep it in your pants, you better be ready for some...accidents.

Take responsibility for your own contraception and its no problem.

 

[Havvk]

Take responsibility for your own contraception and its no problem.

That's your problem, not mine

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

,

Take responsibility for your own contraception and its no problem.

i suppose if you are really unlucky and the condom splits and the spermide goop does not do its job you could still end up in trouble.

thems are the risks you take i guess.

That's your problem, not mine

Are you honestly suggesting the only time a person should EVER have sex is when they are actively trying to have a child, and any other time they should abstain?

Not a very practical point of view imo....... Rightly or wrongly even most (practically all????) Catholics use contraception even if they refuse to admit it.

 

[znôrt]

Best way to avoid that is just don't have "fun in the sheets". Easy. This goes for both men and women.

abstinence has consistently proven to be by far the worst contraceptive strategy, mainly because people can't maintain it. that's just denying the problem.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Strangely enough that happened to me with another woman. End result was she decided not to keep it and I had no say in the matter.

Ultimately it was her choice and while I would have preferred another outcome I supported her.

It does happen, albeit rarely. I guess you could go the double bag protection of the woman going on the pill / having an iud as well... the chances then are probably so remote as to be not worth worrying about.

 

[Stigbob]

That's your problem, not mine

Which is why I say take responsibility for it yourself, I know I do so I've never had any issues.

 

[Havvk]

abstinence has consistently proven to be by far the worst contraceptive strategy, mainly because people can't maintain it. that's just denying the problem.

They can't maintain it because they refuse to keep it in their pants. The problem is on them for it. The solution is easy, but the execution of that solution is not. DUH