The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The right to choose the right to choose > Comments

The right to choose the right to choose : Comments

By Natasha Stott Despoja, published 29/9/2005

Natasha Stott Despoja argues pregnancy counsellors who won't refer for terminations should advertise the fact.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. Page 20
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. All
Duec
Just to correct if the man has a say he pays child support. The penalty is the child support. Many men would argue that having to pay child support for 18 years causes enough of financial and mental burden to exceed the 9 months of the woman.

On that point who was it that said freedom (liberty) without responsibility is anarchy?

>It's quite bizarre that you claim to be against the killing of human life ………., yet you are so willing to argue for a system where said life can be killed as soon as two people agree,

To me it’s all about being logically consistent within the particular circumstances, remember I’m a mete-ethical moral relativist.

Personally to be consistent with our core moral values you would have no abortion unless it has a good chance of threatening the life of the mother the mother is financially compensated by the state and the man pays child support for 18 years. IVF is outlawed as is any embryonic stem cell research.

To have abortion and be consistent, the man has a say but pays child support for 18 years, the woman may be compelled but is compensated by the state. Non-person post natals ie infants the impaired elderly and severely mentally handicapped & those in comas may be killed experimented on or used as body banks.
There can be no objection on abortion for sex or cosmetic selection reasons or late term abortions right up until birth.

I would be prepared to debate in more detail if we stick to short premise like arguments but I must admit this post limit is pissing me.

Newroo if a sex therapist saw read your post they would just shake their head and seriously suggest some therapy and sex education, what a shallow ignorant sexual world you must live in.

Why wont you address not being responsible for the CHOICE of having sex in the first place?
Posted by Neohuman, Thursday, 13 October 2005 3:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Sydney jury of 9 men and 3 women, acquitted 3 young men on rape charges against an 18 year old woman. The woman in question was having consensual group sex with the 3 of them, but at some point in the proceedings, had asked them to stop.

As interesting as the case itself may be, I am more fascinated by its ramifications for this young woman and her unquestioning beliefs in her sexual prowess bordering on predation, armed only with “No” and “Stop”.

What essential ingredient was missing from this case that failed to make these charges stick? Was its connection to football more powerful than those special words in her armoury, or is there something about football groupies that makes them less reliable as witnesses - even worse, could it be a backlash of a more general nature?

Women’s power over sex, family and life itself is well documented within these virtual walls and elsewhere. It is not always responsibly exercised, and is far from being beyond reproach. The irony of course, is that the very people who needed all this legislative protection a relatively short time ago, are now themselves, predators.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
t.u.s - So you ARE advocating either abstinence or sex only for procreation, eh?
I’m going to ignore your comments on my sexual psychology – it’s pretty rich coming from you I have to say….

Did you not read the tag line of my last post?
That I don’t deny NOT having sex is the best way to avoid pregnancy, it’s just not based in reality? I stand by that.

What this really comes down to is you’re asking me to concede the point that 18yrs of child support = 9 months of pg + 18 years of suffering through a pg ravaged body.
Sorry – that you will never hear from me. Money is only money – it will never bring back what a womans’ body was BEFORE pg & childbirth. And when the child turns 18 then (in your world) the mans ‘punishment’ ends….where does the woman go to pick up her new body and lost opportunities? Please collect at next window?

I know you are struggling to give men an equal say in what should happen to any possible ‘product of conception’ they father but frankly, if throwing money at the problem is the best you can come up with then you’re really at a loss.

I already said – I do think it’s unfair that men have to pay for a child they expressly said they DIDN’T want – perhaps a better solution is the re-vamp the current child custody/maintenance laws (which I believe is already happening) but that’s another topic.

Here’s my real curiosity…how come you prioritise the life of those not yet born over the quality of life of those already here? Do women contribute that little to the world in general that they are literally only incubators?
Also – if there were a method of abortion which ensured the foetus did not feel any pain would it make a difference?
(BTW – if the abortion is performed under general anaesthetic, logically the foetus would be as anaesthetised as the mother….(?) they share a blood stream…if my logic is wrong – please explain?)
Posted by Newsroo, Friday, 14 October 2005 8:16:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Newsroo So you ARE advocating either abstinence or sex only for procreation,?

No but I have a compromise position for next post window.

>I’m going to ignore your comments on my sexual psychology – it’s pretty rich coming from you I have to say….

If I had the ability I would have deleted it on further consideration, but long these lines if its unrealistic and within the context too much to ask to save thousands of human lives being taken the you have no right to ask a man to wear a condom and give up the pleasure of unprotected sex furthermore to use pro-choice reasoning has no obligation whatsoever if she get pregnant her body her problem.

>….. you’re asking me to concede the point that 18yrs of child support = 9 months of pg + 18 years of suffering through a pg ravaged body….. Money is only money – it will never bring back what a womans’ body was BEFORE. ..child turns 18 the mans ‘punishment’ ends….

You mightn’t but many men who have to support two families would disagree.
BTW yes Elle Mc certainly has a ravaged body wonder how she can still keep modeling? & these women never want children that will ravage their body?

> give men an equal say,….., if throwing money at the problem is the best you can come up with then you’re really at a loss.

The money solution isn't perfect but it tries in the same way that suing for financial compensation tries to redress the problem. Should a person who lost an eye or partner through negligence say, well money won’t bring them back so there is no point in making the guilty party pay?

I already said – I do think it’s unfair that men have to pay for a child … better solution is the re-vamp the current child custody/maintenance laws..
Good first step.

>Here’s my real curiosity………

Deal with my avoiding the responsibility of the choice of having sex in the first place question & I will explain. Prefer premise form.
Posted by Neohuman, Friday, 14 October 2005 10:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Dr Lecter - quid pro quo.

1.I agree with whoever it was that said (parphrased) that making yourself un-pregnant IS taking responsibility. The situation is resolved (even sometimes at no cost to the father) therefore - responsibility met.

2.I believe that taking maximum precaution (either surgical or double up on contraception) is taking responsibility - if an accident happens - refer to step one.

Yes having sex is a choice.
What I'm saying is that the consequences are so hugely different for both partners.
In essence - the choice to have sex needn't carry the risk of pregnancy for the male - he will definitely never fall pregnant himself and has a range of things which MAY happen if she falls pregnant.
He knows about it or isn't told.
He is asked to pay for the abortion or child support or nothing.
He is asked to participate in the childs life or not and if so, to what degree?
Whether any or all of these things is good or bad depends on his feelings about the pg (if he's told).

I think the differences in our opinion are coming from you thinking it's a human being/life whatever and me feeling that that is inconsequential to the question
Posted by Newsroo, Friday, 14 October 2005 4:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>Pt1
Newsroo1…. making yourself un-pregnant IS taking responsibility. The situation is resolved responsibility met.

Premise 1. Suffering is a problem.
Premise 1.1 Ending suffering fixes that problem
Premise 1.2 Ending a problem meets requirements of responsibility.
Premise 1.3 Non-persons can cause suffering to care givers.

Premise 2. Care givers have responsibility over non-persons.

Premise 3. A non person is inconsequential as it has no moral value/consideration
Premise 3.1. Living entities that don’t have moral value may be killed

Conclusion :
If I suffer & it is caused by a non-person & I’m its care giver, I can kill them as this resolves responsibility.

Ok lets allow the killing of post natal non-persons who cause suffering to their care givers, responsibility ended.

Relevant Factors?

Legal status of post-natals? - Relying on legality, sorry no, think about apartheid.

Is it relevant that the woman is bodily giving the caring? Don’t think so, whether the care/sustenance is internally from the body or results by work done outside the body the result is still the same. Looking after a post natal can cause just as much suffering to care giver, still impinges on personal liberty. There are suicides, nervous break downs by care givers or single parents to post natals.

But with post-natals an alternative caregiver could be found but for pre-natals not until a time period had elapsed it and since that time period would effect liberty and suffering a alternative care giver isn’t viable?

Therefore any situating where there is a time delay to alternative care & suffering, this justifies the taking of non-person lives by caregiver/s. Consider all the children or handicapped who cannot get immediate institutional care; it’s then justified to kill them instead of waiting for a place?

Taking adequate precautions absolves responsibility?

I sure you can think of inherently risky situations that no matter the precaution you don’t do or put another life at risk (speeding for one)& if you do do so become legally/morally responsible for. Or is it ok as long as they are non-persons put at risk?
Posted by Neohuman, Sunday, 16 October 2005 1:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. Page 20
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy