read it again yourself. reply #17

after quoting this:

What's the law on hysterectomies? If they require the husband's approval then there is no double standard at all

this reply was posted:

It is pretty much the same thing, as both is birth control. Besides, isn't the man's testicles his own property and not his wife's? Shouldn't it be his choice and not the government's to do what he wants with his body? Surely reproductive rights don't apply only to women!

read it again yourself. reply #17 after quoting this:

You quoted the first, I quoted the second and commented on the rights and choice.  try again.  I said nothing about hysterectomies, only that the right of privacy should apply in both cases.  Or is that beyond your comprehension?

I said nothing about hysterectomies, only that the right of privacy should apply in both cases. Or is that beyond your comprehension

must be.  when i quote a comment and rate it as insightful, im indicating my approval of the entire quote. 

silly me.

must be. when i quote a comment and rate it as insightful, im indicating my approval of the entire quote. silly me.

Me too.  Not the entire thread.  As I stated, I agreed with and thought insightful his comment, not the issue of hysterectomies.  Hence the reason I did NOT QUOTE it.

I wasn't referring to hysterectomies. I was referring to the comment about abortions and vasectomies being two very different things.

It's not an apples to oranges comparison at all, the reason being that a woman's right to abortion without her husband's consent is based on the argument that it is HER BODY. Testicles, likewise, are a part of the man's body, last I checked.

Testicles, likewise, are a part of the man's body, last I checked

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true). 

obviously the choice to have a vasectomy (which, btw, doesnt directly involve testicles; removing testicles is castration) should be reserved solely to the man who elects to have his vas cut.  same goes for women who choose to have tubal ligation.  

any man or woman who is in an existing relationship and chooses to have either a vasectomy or tubal ligation without consulting or against the wishes of his or her partner is likely putting that relationship at severe risk especially if the other person wishes to have children in the future.  any person who's had the gender appropriate procedure prior to entering into a potentially serious relationship should make that known to his or her partner for obvious reasons.

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control.
absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children.

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control. absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children.

But it sure doesn't help.  Studies have shown that women who have abortions are twice as likely to miscarry as women who have not.  Often, taht little tid bit is not told to the women before they get the procedure.

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true).

Yeah. and those poor women mysteriously fell on a loaded phallus and were impregnated against their will, right?

Either it's a woman's body or it isn't. If it is not a woman's body, then the main thrust of the pro abortion lobby loses much of its punch, as the right to "choose" hinges greatly on it being part of the woman's body. If it IS part of her body, it remains an apt comparison.

as the right to "choose" hinges greatly on it being part of the woman's body

you ever hear of anyone shedding a natural born limb or other organ due to rh factor?

a woman has the right to choose not to carry a fetus inside her body.  

you ever hear of anyone shedding a natural born limb or other organ due to rh factor?

Ever heard of a natural born limb having a baby?

Reply #35 By: kingbee - 1/21/2005 3:29:26 PM as the right to "choose" hinges greatly on it being part of the woman's body you ever hear of anyone shedding a natural born limb or other organ due to rh factor? a woman has the right to choose not to carry a fetus inside her body.

If she doesn't want the fetus inside of her body, then she should have thought of that when she had unprotected sexual contact. Abortion is NOT for birth control. Everyone of you hollers "womans right to choice" Okay. Then have them start thinking about it BEFORE they have unprotected sex.

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true).

When you think about it, adult teeth are invasive, because children are not born with them.

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control. absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children.

Doesn't abortion serve the same function as other birth control albeit reactively rather than proactively?

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control. absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children. Doesn't abortion serve the same function as other birth control albeit reactively rather than proactively?

Nope. No form of birth control takes what is very close to being a fully functioning human and kills it.

Nope. No form of birth control takes what is very close to being a fully functioning human and kills it.

in some cases, a viable baby too.  Even tho they spout about a womans rights to choose, and it is a zygote, the difference between some zygotes and a baby is 2 inches.  PBAs.

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true).

True, women aren't born with children inside them, but the entire anatomy and phyiology of the female reproductive system is to enable conception and support development of a Zygote and Fetus. Throughout a woman's reproductive years, her reproductive system acts as if conception will happen, not as if it won't.

Each 28 day cycle the appropriate parts of her body prepare for the ferilization of an egg. The development of a Zygote and Fetus is not an interruption of the cycle, it is the entire purpose of it. This is not to say that it is the entire purpose of her, just the purpose of one system. Pregnancy is no more "invasive" to the female reproductive system as oxygen is to the circulatory system.

Even tho they spout about a womans rights to choose, and it is a zygote, the difference between some zygotes and a baby is 2 inches.  PBAs.

Who is they? The evil corporation? The evil government? Those evil women?

You can talk about the sanctity of human life as much as you like, but a pregnant woman is still carrying a parasite that is fully capable of killing her and everyone she has ever known. If she and/or her partner doesn't raise it right there's no knowing what it could be capable of. That's a big responsibility, and personally I'd rather the incompetent abort rather than leaving the child to the cruelties of the adoption schemes and the harsh realities of foster parents.

Wow, interesting. I'm 23 and I've considered getting one. Imagine the complications I'd run into.

You can talk about the sanctity of human life as much as you like, but a pregnant woman is still carrying a parasite that is fully capable of killing her and everyone she has ever known. If she and/or her partner doesn't raise it right there's no knowing what it could be capable of. That's a big responsibility, and personally I'd rather the incompetent abort rather than leaving the child to the cruelties of the adoption schemes and the harsh realities of foster parents.

Interesting view of children.
However, when you think about it, the mother was a child once. That means she too is a parasite. In fact, since everybody is a parasite, anybody who supports the right of humans to exist is pro-parasite.

Who is they? The evil corporation? The evil government? Those evil women? You can talk about the sanctity of human life as much as you like, but a pregnant woman is still carrying a parasite that is fully capable of killing her and everyone she has ever known. If she and/or her partner doesn't raise it right there's no knowing what it could be capable of. That's a big responsibility, and personally I'd rather the incompetent abort rather than leaving the child to the cruelties of the adoption schemes and the harsh realities of foster parents.

They is you.  They are the ones that believe a baby is an evil parasite.  They are the ones that believe a baby is not a baby until it walks and talks.

Interesting view of children. However, when you think about it, the mother was a child once. That means she too is a parasite. In fact, since everybody is a parasite, anybody who supports the right of humans to exist is pro-parasite.

Very Insightful.

However, when you think about it, the mother was a child once. That means she too is a parasite. In fact, since everybody is a parasite, anybody who supports the right of humans to exist is pro-parasite.

So? That's not really the point. I don't see why it's the father's decision whether or not to abort. All he did was knock the woman up. There's no real suffering required on his behalf. But the price of pregnancy is quite high, both emotionally and physically. Should people have to experience it for a single mistake? It's nothing like a vasectomy, where the only real effect is that you might not be able to pass on your genes.

They is you.  They are the ones that believe a baby is an evil parasite.  They are the ones that believe a baby is not a baby until it walks and talks.

Oh. In that case, what does PBA mean? Pro bonum addendum or something? I'm not familiar with it. And I don't recall saying babies are evil. They simply have the potential to be, and therefore must be raised with care. A responsibility that is not inherent in vasectomies, and one that only rarely involves the father. I say this because most married couples and those in serious relationships will consult about an abortion automatically; they don't need legislation. Those who aren't in such a relationship might not be thrilled to have their own opinion overruled by absentee partners.

I think it's better to let the individual choose in both circumstances, but then I believe to a certain extent in the liberal creed of universal human rights, so take that how you will.

Reply #42 By: cactoblasta - 1/21/2005 5:26:45 PM Even tho they spout about a womans rights to choose, and it is a zygote, the difference between some zygotes and a baby is 2 inches. PBAs. Who is they? The evil corporation? The evil government? Those evil women? You can talk about the sanctity of human life as much as you like, but a pregnant woman is still carrying a parasite that is fully capable of killing her and everyone she has ever known. If she and/or her partner doesn't raise it right there's no knowing what it could be capable of. That's a big responsibility, and personally I'd rather the incompetent abort rather than leaving the child to the cruelties of the adoption schemes and the harsh realities of foster parents.

She/they should have thought of that when they had unprotected sex.

There's no real suffering required on his behalf.

If you believe this then you've never been on the wrong side of a child support case.

So? That's not really the point. I don't see why it's the father's decision whether or not to abort. All he did was knock the woman up. There's no real suffering required on his behalf. But the price of pregnancy is quite high, both emotionally and physically. Should people have to experience it for a single mistake? It's nothing like a vasectomy, where the only real effect is that you might not be able to pass on your genes.

No, all I'm saying is that I agree with you that all humans are parasites and that anybody who supports the right of humans to exist is pro-parasite.
By the way, isn't the price of abortion also quite high mentally and physically, or is it all lollypops and candyland?
And yes, vasectomies aren't like pregnancy. They're like abortion, in that it's to prevent the birth of a child.

And I don't recall saying babies are evil.

No, you called them parasites capable of killing the mother and everybody she loves. When you think about it, humans need to be snuffed before it's too late.

And yes, vasectomies aren't like pregnancy. They're like abortion, in that it's to prevent the birth of a child.

Ah, now I see what you mean. I imagine you're against condoms and birth control as well. That's all right. Neither of us are going to be capable of viewing the other's views as sensible, so I won't bother with any more unnecessary discussion.

No, you called them parasites capable of killing the mother and everybody she loves. When you think about it, humans need to be snuffed before it's too late

Personally I don't consider parasites as innately evil. There's nothing evil about locusts, yet they're parasites. I don't think they stroke cats and have lazy eyes (or at least, they don't do it where I can see...) Why do you? Babies do have that potential, and in the womb they exist through taking sustenance from the flesh of their mother. Sounds like parasitic behaviour to me. And of course they can kill. I've heard of lots of serial killers who had "troubled childhoods". Is there a link? I'd rather not find out if it's fine with you.

It should be the mother's choice on abortions and the man's choice with vasectomies, particularly as they will be the ones it affects most.