• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Abortion

I'm not seeing the issue. Every operation and treatment possible in the UK can be done for free. I don't see why abortion should be treated differently. If a private surgeon can do it, why can't one on the NHS? Because my slutty whore ways are damaging the healthcare system??
 
Yes, because as we all know money is never a problem for anyone.

... ETA: [flops on Tailsy for postninjaing]
 
Tailsy said:
I'm not seeing the issue. Every operation and treatment possible in the UK can be done for free. I don't see why abortion should be treated differently. If a private surgeon can do it, why can't one on the NHS? Because my slutty whore ways are damaging the healthcare system??
Click to expand...

Why are you being so defensive to things I didn't even allege?
 
Also I think I've been fairly convinced that abortion is also wrong in the case of rape.
Click to expand...
What? So on top of having to deal with being raped (and all the horrible shit that goes with it ie invasive and ridiculous police procedures, social rejection, self-hatred etc), you'd want a raped female-bodied person (because male transsexuals can and depressingly often do get raped as well) to have to carry around and give birth to the rapist's child?

I can't even fathom the thought process that would lead to such a vile conclusion.

EDIT: to the people who say that abortion should be illegal except in instances of rape: how would you go about proving that you were raped? In the extremely infrequent 'dark-alley' rape, I guess you could submit the results of the invasive rape kits, but if it was a rape committed by someone close to you or your partner, well, how? They won't necessarily beat you or do anything like that. There is no external proof. You could just take people at their word, but then anyone could just claim to have been raped and get an abortion.

Also to reiterate the point that no matter whether or not abortion is legal, people will perform it themselves at the risk of their lives (I come from Portugal, where abortion was only legalized in 2007, and I can personally vouch for this). Unless you're completely repulsive you presumably don't wish death on women who are obviously that desperate not to have a child.
 
Last edited:
Bachuru said:
Honestly? If they truly have no capacity to plan or love or wish or anticipate the future - which amounts to barely being able to think or feel at all, really - then yeah, I think it is morally justifiable to euthanize them humanely.
Click to expand...
But isn't the problem with this that you wouldn't think it was morally justifiable if they were going to get better in nine months' time?
 
Last edited:
In the UK, the system is basically two doctors decide whether having a baby will harm the mother in any way at all, including physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, fiscally, etc.
If so, it's fine.
It's a good system. It works.

Abortion is the mother's right etc. How does someone else (who you probably don't know or have never even seen) having an abortion affect you, etc. Why does it bother you if someone else does it, etc.

Sex isn't bad etc. It's fun, actually and stuff.
Why should that have consequences and stuff when other stuff doesn't?
And even then, why shouldn't we get rid of the consequences? We got rid of the effects of bad weather (mostly) and predators (mostly) and poisonous food (mostly). Why not unwanted pregnancies, also? The only reason we have anything at all is because we either want something or we don't want something.
Saying a chick should be denied an abortion because it is her fault that she did something that led to maybe getting pregnant is tantamount to denying the same woman surgery because she fell when she tried to do something like walk down the stairs.
The only difference is that sex is ~*~magical~*~. Or something.
Except it's not. It's no different than eating, and all the wankers out there who jizz as often as they eat aren't being penalised, so uh.
I mean if a guy shot a load into his own eye (seriously, jizz in the eye burns. didn't speak to him in weeks), would you deny him aid? I mean, I'd probably be laughing too much to help, but I wouldn't actively stop anyone from doing so.
My point is that that sex related injury is treated (I assume), so why not pregnancy?

Nothing really quotable that hasn't already been answered, so I'm just throwing out arguments, here.

Oh yeah, the Beethoven thingy. It's crap.
Same chance of producing Hitler, downs syndrome, chavs, gingers, blahblahblah.
 
Ruby said:
But isn't the problem with this that you wouldn't think it was morally justifiable if they were going to get better in nine months' time?
Click to expand...
There's a key difference: nobody will have to go through the probably rather painful process of giving birth to a child in order to restore this person, so his/her recovery is not causing anyone any harm.

In any case, if this person really meets the aforementioned criteria - has no capacity to think or feel or dream or feel pain whatsoever and will be missed by absolutely no one - then I say go for it. Hurr hurr.
 
Vladimir Putin's LJ said:
What? So on top of having to deal with being raped (and all the horrible shit that goes with it ie invasive and ridiculous police procedures, social rejection, self-hatred etc), you'd want a raped female-bodied person (because male transsexuals can and depressingly often do get raped as well) to have to carry around and give birth to the rapist's child?

I can't even fathom the thought process that would lead to such a vile conclusion.
Click to expand...

Can I also throw into the mix that a huge number of rapes happen to individuals who are physically and mentally disabled - 40% of physically disabled women interviewed in one study reported being sexually assaulted, and in another, 83% of developmentally disabled women have been victims of sexual assault.
My dad is a carer in a home for developmentally disabled adults. Many of the women looked after there can't manage (and don't understand) their own periods. You'd force someone like that to endure nine months of pregnancy and then give birth to a child? Who would, in all probability, be developmentally disabled themselves? Do you have any idea what the adoption rates are on disabled kids?
 
Music Dragon said:
There's a key difference: nobody will have to go through the probably rather painful process of giving birth to a child in order to restore this person, so his/her recovery is not causing anyone any harm.
Click to expand...
I don't think this really nulls the point which Danni made and which Butterfree was responding to. The point was that in one scenario, Butterfree's criteria for deciding whether a killing is bad seem to contradict our moral intuitions. You may just abandon the criteria and say that although killing a foetus is bad after all, it's less bad than the only alternative (forcing the mother to go through the painful process of giving birth). That is an argument. But it's not one that will convince any pro-lifers, because it's based entirely on your own personal weighing up of two immoral acts.
 
Last edited:
Dannichu said:
Can I also throw into the mix that a huge number of rapes happen to individuals who are physically and mentally disabled - 40% of physically disabled women interviewed in one study reported being sexually assaulted, and in another, 83% of developmentally disabled women have been victims of sexual assault.
My dad is a carer in a home for developmentally disabled adults. Many of the women looked after there can't manage (and don't understand) their own periods. You'd force someone like that to endure nine months of pregnancy and then give birth to a child? Who would, in all probability, be developmentally disabled themselves? Do you have any idea what the adoption rates are on disabled kids?
Click to expand...

See, with the scenario I outlined, the psychologist would obviously see an abortion fit for that person, and they or their caretaker wouldn't have to pay for it.
 
The thing about requiring one to see a psychologist is that abortion is time-sensitive. Psychologists are busy! As are most doctors! It's not at all unlikely that it might take a few weeks for there to even be an open spot, and the person who needs an abortion is busy, too.

All this really does (similarly to the requirements in some states to undergo a ~sonogram~ before getting an abortion) is to waste time and guilt trip whoever needs an abortion into not getting one. It does absolutely nothing about the reasons why that person wanted an abortion in the first place.
 
enekoiru said:
The thing about requiring one to see a psychologist is that abortion is time-sensitive. Psychologists are busy! As are most doctors! It's not at all unlikely that it might take a few weeks for there to even be an open spot, and the person who needs an abortion is busy, too.

All this really does (similarly to the requirements in some states to undergo a ~sonogram~ before getting an abortion) is to waste time and guilt trip whoever needs an abortion into not getting one. It does absolutely nothing about the reasons why that person wanted an abortion in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think people should have to pay for abortions they needed, but I don't know if people would put tax dollars to it if they disagree with it.
 
Tax dollars go to things that they disagree with all the time. Doesn't mean whatever the tax dollars are being spent on isn't necessary. See also: people complaining about funding for programs like WIC.
 
enekoiru said:
Tax dollars go to things that they disagree with all the time. Doesn't mean whatever the tax dollars are being spent on isn't necessary. See also: people complaining about funding for programs like WIC.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between funding food for people who need it and aborting proto-babies.
 
newt said:
Why not? (contraception is pretty effective, and then when it isn't, if you're cool with getting an abortion and don't want to/can't afford to be pregnant, you get one)

100% success rate, and none of that "don't have sex except for at risk of having a child" business.
Click to expand...

Because not every one is "cool" with getting an abortion. My mother is 100% against abortion, I am not 100% against abortion but would be extremely uncomfortable with the concept of getting one, et. al. I think if you can help it, don't have sex that can lead to a child, i.e. take the measures to prevent a child from happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom