Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Which poll option reflects your view (everything that's free is paid for by the state)

Women should get free abortions and free birth control drugs even during a deficit.
16
57%
Women should get free abortions and free birth control drugs within a balanced budget.
2
7%
Women should get free abortion only if under the age.
No votes
0%
Women should never get free abortion and free birth control drugs even if the state has the available funds.
3
11%
Other (please elaborate)
7
25%
#13901122
stalker wrote:That would be a stupid, tautological question.

She wasn't aborted because of the obvious fact that she isn't a dead fetus.

That answers a question asking you to prove that you were not aborted, not the why behind it.
#13901207
Rei Murasame wrote:This is a new one. Dare I ask how strip clubs are comparable to abortion procedures?


Abortions on demand. Seriously getting tired of emphasizing the difference between abortions that have good, legitimate reasoning and abortions that are sought for idiocy/selfishness.

They're comparable because it's mostly men that go to strip clubs ( as only women get abortions ) and some men feel that strip clubs offer great emotional value to their lives.

So why don't we give out tax payer money for men to go and get their rocks off, after all they may have good personal reasons right?


I'm all for women getting free abortions when there's a legitimate reason for it. A woman that is raped and becomes pregnant and for obvious reasons doesn't want to have the child shouldn't be forced to pay for the abortion because it's like she's paying for being raped.

On the other hand I'll be damned if my taxes go towards funding a woman's abortion just because of a broken condom or she doesn't want the child now since her boyfriend left her.


For fuck's sake anyone thinking my taxes should go towards a woman's abortion based off desire is screwed in the head, or painfully ignorant.

Tax payer's money should go towards public necessities, like public transit, or schooling, etc. Not abortions. If you cut out all the government funding that pays for abortions every year in Canada ( except the province of Nova Scotia ) you could greatly aid other public sectors.

Hell, in 2005 there were 96,815 abortions, if we go by the average cost of $250 for each one then that's over 24 MILLION. Let's assume 20% of those abortions were for good reasons and that leaves over about 19 Million. Put that into some government sports program. Or hell, research and development could always use the money. But 19 Million for on demand abortions? Fuck that shit, that's incredibly stupid.
#13901319
stalker wrote:That would be a stupid, tautological question.

She wasn't aborted because of the obvious fact that she isn't a dead fetus.


Hur, hur, hur...

...we "ought" not refrain from giving bullets to those who ignore the is-ought problem either.
#13901331
R_G wrote:Seriously getting tired of emphasizing the difference between abortions that have good, legitimate reasoning and abortions that are sought for idiocy/selfishness.

Well, that's a completely arbitrary line you've drawn, as though someone needs to really provide a 'good reason' for getting rid of something they can't afford to have, while we are encouraging the population bubble to be deflated.

Why should it be our responsibility to even attempt to draw a line? I can't find a practical use for it.

R_G wrote:On the other hand I'll be damned if my taxes go towards funding a woman's abortion just because of a broken condom or she doesn't want the child now since her boyfriend left her.

See, I don't understand the objection. If she didn't plan for that child, then there is no reason why we should force her to have it. The thing is being deselected because of some reason, be it that the money is not there, the time is not there, or the woman realises that the man is undesirable and doesn't like his genes, or the man leaves and she feels like the agreement is broken, or... and the list can go on.

Why not just trust that the laws of Darwin are true, and that if the foetus were any good to us as a society, then the woman wouldn't be trying to rid herself of it? Women's role is to make that choice, since women have preponderance over the selection process of a given ethnic group.

R_G wrote:For fuck's sake anyone thinking my taxes should go towards a woman's abortion based off desire is screwed in the head, or painfully ignorant.

No, I just really don't care about the sort of morality that you are espousing. If these women are really convinced that they do not want their genes to recombined with someone else's to form a foetus and then a child at that moment, then let them kill it.

Good riddance to it, one less problem for society to deal with, and positive incentives are honoured all around. When we are making a garden, we don't want to grow flowers that we have doubts about. We want them to have flowers of certainty and strength, flowers that are planned.

You speak of 'illegitimate reasons', but I think you have it backwards.

We need to stop allowing gene malinvestment to go on, and the best way to do that is to keep people informed about what their options are, provide the tools for choices to be made, make people be eugenically conscious, and allow the selection process to work its magic on that basis, within that setting.

To address one of the examples you gave specifically - if a woman starts a pregnancy with a man's assisstance under the assumption that he will do something that she wants in return for her collaboration in the project, and the man leaves the agreement, then it seems reasonable to me that a woman would kill the foetus at that moment. The man can't possibly complain, he entered into some sort of informal agreement and quite plainly broke it.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 21 Feb 2012 12:29, edited 2 times in total.
#13901334
Sometimes, I wonder why we don't kill psychopaths too. They're not very practical to keep around either.
#13901342
Incidentally, you can't kill so-called 'psychopaths' because so-called 'psychopaths' actually are smart enough to oppress you from early on in order to prevent you from interfering.

In a eugenically conscious society, you would simply have no power to oppose any of this, Daktoria & Ness31, because like what happened in Japan, opposition to abortion would just become some sort of joke.

It would be impossible to think of a world where children are accidental and accepted as such.

Check it, we only have a certain amount of time and money to invest in making a child. At best you might only be able to have two children. People better have the tools to make the correct choice, one that they are really sure about. Being choosy is necessary. Sometimes being choosy may require you to abort something.

You liberal humanitarians just can't understand this. You call your opponents 'psychopaths', because you don't understand the economy of sexual reproduction and how it is mediated by ethnic nationalism (a collectivist impulse).
#13901355
Rei Murasame wrote:Incidentally, you can't kill so-called 'psychopaths' because so-called 'psychopaths' actually are smart enough to oppress you from early on in order to prevent you from interfering.

In a eugenically conscious society, you would simply have no power to oppose any of this, Daktoria & Ness31, because like what happened in Japan, opposition to abortion would just become some sort of joke.

It would be impossible to think of a world where children are accidental and accepted as such.

Check it, we only have a certain amount of time and money to invest in making a child. At best you might only be able to have two children. People better have the tools to make the correct choice, one that they are really sure about.


Interesting.

It sounds like psychopaths believe in intelligent design and deliberately mistake luck for skill. The purpose of making abortion a joke is a defense mechanism against anxiety by imposing hierarchy and absurdity.

In turn, by making accidental children an impossible thought, parents could claim children brought themselves into the world and deserve to be found guilty before proven innocent.

Perhaps there is choice making involved, but why is abortion necessary? Why not just save sperm and eggs and choose before conception? Abortion would be a rather inefficient and frustrating process.

The only reason to be choosy post-conception...

...is if you believe there's an alternative realm from which consciousness is summoned.

The question is, "Why are you aborting?" Is it because you're afraid of others being brought into reality, or is it torture? I'm inclined to believe the latter because it takes emotional sadism to be as competitive as possible, to inflict pain on a competitor.

Being choosy is necessary. Sometimes being choosy may require you to abort something.


OK, yes. There's a social competition going on. Someone has to win, someone has to lose. Is that all there is though? Is competition the only possible intersubjective experience? People can cooperate instead.

Are you saying intelligence drives psychopaths towards paranoia?

Liberal humanitarians just can't understand this.


Hmmm.

There's a couple interpretations of what you really mean here.

Are you saying "liberal humanitarians" can't afford to acknowledge this competition?

Are you saying "liberal humanitarians" must not let competition go on?

Are you saying "liberal humanitarians" are afraid to torture psychopaths forever to prevent abortion from happening in the future?

You call your opponents 'psychopaths', because you don't understand the economy of sexual reproduction and how it is mediated by ethnic nationalism (a collectivist impulse).


Emotions are pre-programmed...

...by the social competition...

...liberal humanitarians are the outcasts of that higher game?

Psychopaths are preserving the hierarchy...

...because there's nothing else to do?

...because they're paranoid?

...because they're afraid of losing control over emotional programming?

Do psychopaths not see all the suffering that could be avoided forever from cooperation instead of competition?

Emotions... they are the bane of our existence. There is always so much more pain than pleasure, and pain lasts so much longer.

Why not just be done with it...

...or are you aborting us so we don't have to deal with it in the first place?

Why? Tell me what's really going on.
#13901391
Bloody hell, Daktoria. Eugenics is not nearly as complicated as you seem to be deliberately trying to make it.

That was the most meandering and spacey post I have ever seen on PoFo. It also looks like you are abandoning reading-comprehension and just playing around with the words in my post.
#13901393
...

Do you want to have a real discussion on abortion, or not?

Interestingly, I've been discussing this very (spiritual) issue with a former Zen Buddhist 60+ year old woman on another forum (who spent 10 years of her life teaching English in Japan).

At least she was mature enough to admit there is something much deeper going on.
#13901395
R_G wrote:Abortions on demand. Seriously getting tired of emphasizing the difference between abortions that have good, legitimate reasoning and abortions that are sought for idiocy/selfishness.... Fuck that shit, that's incredibly stupid.


Please explain how you know better than the women herself what is a good reason. Thank you.
#13901428
Sephardi wrote:I think women should get both free within a balanced budget. Reason: Population control and it won't really cost all that much.


You're in New York City? I can see why population control might be concern for you. If the State wants to legislate free abortions and free contraception, I have no problem with that as long as they get voter approval. I believe this is outside of the purview of the Federal Government.
#13901442
Other

Contraception should be free. Abortion should be free untill 18 or 21 or something. (Dutch law states financial responsability and liability of the parents ends when their childeren are 21)

When contraception is free and you know it, than you should not need to have an abortion. You can argue parents can presure their childeren not to use contraception, so they should be able to get an abortion for free without the consent of the parents so they can have it.



R_G wrote wrote:Abortions on demand. Seriously getting tired of emphasizing the difference between abortions that have good, legitimate reasoning and abortions that are sought for idiocy/selfishness.... Fuck that shit, that's incredibly stupid.

So what that its done with idiotic selfishness reasons.

I know somebody. She got told she is an unwanted child. Was made to call her mother "ma'am" instead. Flyers of boarding schools always around. Speeches of "I am going to kick out out the house they day you hit 18". Picture that.. she "celebrates" her 12th birthday and mammy says.. 6 more fokking years until I get rid of you. She ran of age 18, dropped out of school and made her own living where her main possesion remains to be a childhood full of terror and drama.

Oh the quality of life is so swell when people think they must keep their foetus.
#13901485
Daktoria wrote:At least she was mature enough to admit there is something much deeper going on.

It's not deeper, it's just another facet of the same issue, on the same level.

You already know that I have spiritual justification for abortion because my profile lists "Theosophy" (mildly pro-abortion) and "Shinto" (flagrantly pro-abortion) as two religious influences, so aside from the fact that I have talked about this before anyway, you know ahead of time what my spiritual justification for abortion will look like.

The reason I don't bother to present that argument is because I know that you don't believe what I believe, so what would be the point of it? You'd either tell me that you are an atheist or you will tell me that you don't believe that the 'spiritual world' works in the way that I think it does.

And there is no way that I am going to try to convert you to my way of life in the middle of an abortion thread, since that will obviously drag on and kill the thread.

So I think - for everyone's sanity - we can leave aside any ideas of having a theological discussion on this.
#13901534
Rei Murasame wrote:It's not deeper, it's just another facet of the same issue, on the same level.

You already know that I have spiritual justification for abortion because my profile lists "Theosophy" (mildly pro-abortion) and "Shinto" (flagrantly pro-abortion) as two religious influences, so aside from the fact that I have talked about this before anyway, you know ahead of time what my spiritual justification for abortion will look like.

The reason I don't bother to present that argument is because I know that you don't believe what I believe, so what would be the point of it? You'd either tell me that you are an atheist or you will tell me that you don't believe that the 'spiritual world' works in the way that I think it does.

And there is no way that I am going to try to convert you to my way of life in the middle of an abortion thread, since that will obviously drag on and kill the thread.

So I think - for everyone's sanity - we can leave aside any ideas of having a theological discussion on this.


Are you saying your spiritual justification will drive everyone insane?

Maybe if you try to commune with people instead of convert them, people won't be driven so crazy by what you believe.

Communing with others could help relieve you from driving yourself insane too:

    'psychopaths' actually are smart enough to oppress you from early on in order to prevent you from interfering.

    Eugenics is not nearly as complicated as you seem to be deliberately trying to make it.
#13901541
You know what this thread taught me?

It's something that's a big generalization but people like Rei Murasame make me believe it's the majority opinion. That the Japanese have a very warped view of life. Warped from an outside perspective.

No wonder they felt the need to massacre the Chinese and made the right deals with the Americans so their historical atrocities are slowly but surely forgotten by anyone who is outside of China.

Jesus I can't even wrap my head around your so called arguments, I have to imagine I'm talking to a machine that has no idea what human emotion or social conduct is.

Serious question Rei Murasame, what is your relationship with your parents? Because you display a clear prototype of a trouble youth that develops thought based on personal disappointments.

But I digress:
Rei Murasame wrote:Well, that's a completely arbitrary line you've drawn, as though someone needs to really provide a 'good reason' for getting rid of something they can't afford to have, while we are encouraging the population bubble to be deflated.

Why should it be our responsibility to even attempt to draw a line? I can't find a practical use for it.


It's comparable to how some graduates have to repay student loans in full every month and others get assistance in the government paying off their interest and deferring monthly payments.

See, I don't understand the objection. If she didn't plan for that child, then there is no reason why we should force her to have it. The thing is being deselected because of some reason, be it that the money is not there, the time is not there, or the woman realises that the man is undesirable and doesn't like his genes, or the man leaves and she feels like the agreement is broken, or... and the list can go on.


I think you're in the mindset that pregnancy is an easy afterthought of sex. If a woman really didn't want to have children, she will take the proper pre-cautions. If every woman who didn't want to have children took birth control pills abortion rates would decrease substantially.

Women who get abortions purely on the basis that their boyfriend or husband left them are weak individuals and their child shouldn't suffer for it. I've know too many kids who were raised by single mothers, myself included for a time. There exist enough government support programs that will help a woman in any financial situation to support a child, or there's adoption.

To address one of the examples you gave specifically - if a woman starts a pregnancy with a man's assisstance under the assumption that he will do something that she wants in return for her collaboration in the project, and the man leaves the agreement, then it seems reasonable to me that a woman would kill the foetus at that moment. The man can't possibly complain, he entered into some sort of informal agreement and quite plainly broke it.


I tend to look at pregnancy as a very strong contract that cannot be broken once signed and the standard time period has passed where one could still opt to get out of it. I suppose I wish cell-phone contracts were this loose.

Maas wrote:I know somebody. She got told she is an unwanted child. Was made to call her mother "ma'am" instead. Flyers of boarding schools always around. Speeches of "I am going to kick out out the house they day you hit 18". Picture that.. she "celebrates" her 12th birthday and mammy says.. 6 more fokking years until I get rid of you. She ran of age 18, dropped out of school and made her own living where her main possesion remains to be a childhood full of terror and drama.


That is a laughable story Maas, the biggest reason being I don't for a second buy a woman that taunts and hates her kid that much keeping it. A woman can give her child up for adoption at 6 years old, I'm not sure of the actual limitations so it can keep going. So this crazy woman who hated her kid so much was most likely screwed in the head and hence child services should have taken the child.

Your example is a very weak one and even still a very RARE one. These stories should never be the basis of an argument if that was your goal.

Pants of dog wrote:Please explain how you know better than the women herself what is a good reason. Thank you.


If anything, I in an objective position with no personal investment in the situation would be in a better position to judge. People in general make haste decision all the time. That's why police exist, why people think it's a travesty to police abortion of all things is beyond me. Especially when a country has birth rate issues.
#13901552
Rei Murasame wrote:@Daktoria: I'm saying that no one - including you - would give a damn what my spiritual justification for it is. So what's the point?


The point is you're wrong. People do give a damn.
#13901557
R_G wrote:If anything, I in an objective position with no personal investment in the situation would be in a better position to judge. People in general make haste decision all the time. That's why police exist, why people think it's a travesty to police abortion of all things is beyond me. Especially when a country has birth rate issues.


Using that logic, I am a much better judge than you about every aspect of your life, as I have no skin in the game, so to speak.

You should make me autocratic ruler of your life.

As far as I know, according to polls (which obviou[…]

Greetings from Strasbourg!

Hey bud, welcome to the thunderdome!

I know the treaties but in the scenario posted, Sc[…]

In short, Regenerus refused to control for stab[…]