Fetal heartbeat and the abortion fight - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15005515
Sivad wrote:Well that's not the argument, the argument is that personhood requires at the very least an initial experience of conscious awareness.

That's just an assertion, not an argument. We could also define "personhood" as having the capacity for consciousness, consistent with our general view that being asleep, unconscious or sedated doesn't mean somebody's life can be taken without repercussions.

Sivad wrote:The article presented multiple lines of evidence, dismissing it as "creative guesswork" is motivated reasoning on your part.

The author himself admits that guesswork is involved when he "wagers" that the foetus experiences nothing in the womb. I'm not familiar with the evidence on this, but I'm willing to bet that our understanding of consciousness in the foetus is even more limited than in general, and any strong claim that we can deduce "personhood" from the evidence available will almost invariably be motivated reasoning.
#15005715
Men Cause 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies
Our conversation about abortion places the burden of responsibility on women. I argue men are the root cause.

As a mother of six and a Mormon, I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. When I hear men discussing women’s reproductive rights, I’m often left with the thought that they have zero interest in stopping abortion.

If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.

I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.

Don’t believe me?

Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.

But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.

“But what about birth control?” you might ask. “ If a woman can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy, right?”

Great question. Modern birth control for women is possibly the most important invention of the last century, and I’m very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women include migraines, mood swings, decreased libido, depression, severe cramps, heavy bleeding, aneurysm — and that’s just a small fraction of them.

Discouragingly, a promising study on a new male contraceptive was canceled in large part due to… (wait for it)… side effects. To be clear, this list of side effects was about one-third as long as the known side effects for commonly used women’s contraception. There’s a lot to unpack in that story alone. I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

But, men, I’ve got good news. Even with the horrible side effects, women are (amazingly!) very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately, it’s harder to get than it should be, but that doesn’t keep women from trying. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment — sometimes multiple doctor’s appointments — and a prescription. They’re not always free, and often not cheap. Some are actually trying to make female birth control options more expensive by allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover them. In addition, contraceptive options for women can’t be easily acquired at the last minute. In most cases, they don’t work instantly.

The pill requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. Again, the side effects can be brutal — and not just in rare cases. Despite the hassle and side effects, I’m still grateful for birth control. (Please don’t take it away.) But it’s critical to understand that women’s birth control isn’t simple or easy.

In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men — i.e., condoms. They’re readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective and work on demand, instantly. They don’t cause aneurysms, mood swings, or debilitating cramps. Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. They can be easily used at the last minute. I mean, condoms are magic! So much easier than birth control options for women.

As a bonus, most women are totally on board with condoms. They keep us from getting STDs. They don’t lessen our pleasure during sex or prevent us from climaxing. The best part? Cleanup is so much easier — no waddling to the toilet as jizz drips down our legs.

So why would there ever be unwanted pregnancies? Why don’t men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Oh. I remember. Men don’t love condoms. In fact, it’s very, very common for men to pressure women to have sex without a condom. It’s also not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex without the women’s permission or knowledge. (Pro tip: That’s assault.)

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Because, for the precious minutes when they’re penetrating their partner, not wearing a condom gives them more pleasure. So… that would mean some men are willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career — so they can experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure. Is this for real?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Imagine a pleasure scale, with pain beginning at zero and going down into the negatives. A good back-scratch falls at 5, and an orgasm without a condom is a 10. Where would sex with a condom fall? A 7 or 8? So, it’s not that sex with a condom is not pleasurable, it’s just not as pleasurable. An 8 instead of a 10.

Let me emphasize that again: Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk in order to experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure.

For the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control option built right in: the pull-out. It doesn’t protect against STDs, it’s an easy joke, and it’s far from perfect. However, it’s 96% effective if done correctly, and 78% effective in practice (because it’s often not done correctly).

Still, many men who resist wearing condoms never learn how to pull out correctly. Apparently, it’s slightly more pleasurable to climax inside a vagina than, say, on their partner’s stomach. Once again, men are willing to risk the life, health, and well-being of women in order to experience a tiny bit more pleasure for roughly five seconds during orgasm.

Think of the choice men are making here. Honestly, I’m not as mad as I should be about this, because we’ve trained men from birth to disassociate sex and pregnancy. We’ve taught them that their pleasure is of utmost importance.

As a general rule, men get women pregnant by having an orgasm. Yes, there are exceptions — it’s possible for sperm to show up in pre-ejaculate — but in most cases, getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men. But men can get a woman pregnant without her feeling any pleasure at all. It’s even possible for a man to impregnate a woman while causing her excruciating pain, trauma, or horror.

In contrast, a woman can have nonstop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A woman’s orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility — her clitoris exists simply for pleasure, not for creating new humans. No matter how many orgasms she has, they won’t make her pregnant.

Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

A woman can be the sluttiest slut in the entire world, she can love having orgasms all day and all night long, and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly. Though our society tends to villainize female pleasure, women’s enjoyment of sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men’s enjoyment of sex and irresponsible ejaculations do.

Let’s move to the topic of responsibility. Often, men don’t know, don’t ask, and don’t think to ask if they’ve caused a pregnancy. There are often zero consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never even know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation. If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation either. He may never know there’s now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

If the woman does tell him he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that she’s having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him is child support. Our current child support system is a well-known joke. Only about 61 percent of required payments by men are actually made, and there are little to no repercussions for skipping out. In some states, failing to pay child support doesn’t even affect your credit.

If a man does pay child support, it doesn’t come close to what is required by a woman in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Let’s talk about abortion. When the topic comes up, men might think: Abortion is horrible; women should not have abortions. Never once do they consider the man who caused the unwanted pregnancy.

If we’re discussing abortion law — and not how to hold men accountable for irresponsible ejaculations, and the unwanted pregnancies caused by them — we’re wasting our time. Shift the conversation. Stop protesting at clinics. Stop shaming women. Stop debating whether or not to overturn abortion laws. If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply hold men accountable for their actions.

What would that look like? A real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy. What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering…

… as forcing a woman to go through a nine-month unwanted pregnancy?

If you consider abortion to be murder, consider this thought experiment: Would you be on board with having a handful of men castrated to prevent 600,000 murders each year? If this argument sounds too provocative, could it be that many of us have a hard time wrapping our heads around a physical punishment for men? We seem to be more than fine with physical punishments for women. Perhaps we care more about policing women’s bodies, morality, and sexuality than we do about reducing or eliminating abortions.

Here’s another prevention idea: All males in the U.S. could get a vasectomy when they are ready to be sexually active. Vasectomies are very safe, highly reversible, and about as invasive as a woman getting an IUD implanted. In most cases, there’s some soreness afterwards for about 24 hours, but that’s pretty much it for side effects. (Take a moment to remember that female contraception options, used by millions of women in our country and billions across the world, have well-known side effects which can be brutal and severe — and yes, also include soreness.) If and when a man becomes a responsible adult, finds a mate, and wants to have a baby, the vasectomy can be reversed and then redone once the childbearing stage is over. Each man can bank their sperm before the vasectomy, just in case.

Don’t like my ideas? That’s fine. I’m sure there are better ideas, and I challenge you to suggest your own. My point is we need to stop focusing on women if we’re trying to get rid of abortions. Think of abortion as the “cure” for an unwanted pregnancy. To stop abortions, we need to prevent the “disease” — meaning, the unwanted pregnancy itself. And the only way to do that is by focusing on men, because irresponsible ejaculations by men cause 100% of unwanted pregnancy.

If you’re a man, what would it take for you to never again ejaculate irresponsibly? A loss of money, rights, or freedoms? Physical pain? Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?

Men mostly run our government, and men mostly make our laws. In theory, men could eliminate — or drastically reduce — abortions within months without ever touching an abortion law or even mentioning women. They’d simply need to hold men accountable for irresponsible ejaculations, and legislate accordingly.

To reduce or eliminate abortions, stop attempting to control women’s bodies and sexuality. Because unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.
Source.
#15005748
This is a hypothetical time line from the point of conception at 0 time to the delivery of a healthy baby at 9 months on the far right.

|_______________________________________________________________________|
0 .............................................................................................................................. 9 months
Now please draw a vertical line where you believe the growing infant may be destroyed, by chemical or surgical means, up to that vertical line you drew, but not after it. Tell us how you split the second between killing/destroying the life and in the following instant, why it is legally entitled to live.

Then explain where the father's rights come into play. Should the woman elect to have a child, the father must pay support for 18 years. No ifs, ands, or buts. No "choice."

Why is Scott Peterson doing life in prison for killing his unborn child, Connor? If a woman kills the baby, it's "choice." It's not HER body she's killing either.

My niece adopted two beautiful children from Russia because there are none to adopt here in America. We are told that "they're unwanted. Are YOU going to raise all these "unwanted" babies, huh, huh, huh? All lies. There's no "parenthood" in Planned Parenthood. It's planned murder.
They're not "women's reproductive rights" that feminists (sic) scream about. They don't want reproduction, they want destruction.

Every evil begins with a lie. - D. James Kennedy, PhD
#15005752
MvrWonderful wrote:This is a hypothetical time line from the point of conception at 0 time to the delivery of a healthy baby at 9 months on the far right.

|_______________________________________________________________________|
0 .............................................................................................................................. 9 months
Now please draw a vertical line where you believe the growing infant may be destroyed, by chemical or surgical means, up to that vertical line you drew, but not after it. Tell us how you split the second between killing/destroying the life and in the following instant, why it is legally entitled to live.


Parents should legally be allowed to kill their children up to the age of 18. I am a strong believer in the death penalty as a deterrent to crime, and logically extend this belief into parenting despite all evidence to the contrary showing that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

[KS mod edit: rule 2]
#15005755
MrWonderful wrote:Then explain where the father's rights come into play.


Easy. They do not ever come into play. Unless he actually helps raise the kid.

Should the woman elect to have a child, the father must pay support for 18 years. No ifs, ands, or buts. No "choice."


Yes, that is true. But since the rights of a woman to decide what to do with her body are independent of the reasons why capitalist countries force fathers to pay child support, this is irrelevant.
#15005798
There no mothers or fathers until a child is born alive.

It's much easier if you take that into consideration when arguing abortion, or parental rights of any description, to avoid muddying the waters.

Also, adoption is not an alernative to abortion, but to keeping or giving away your born child.

Abortion is an alternative to going through pregnancy and giving birth - which is a life changing, body changing, mind altering experience for women.

Men don't need to risk their health or even their lives to become a parent, whereas women do.

That is an indisputable fact and nothing to do with the law or equality, but how human reproduction works.

Due to modern medical advances, pregnancy and childbirth is relatively safe in western countries these days, but nothing is taken for granted.

Women are carefully monitored throughout and for some time afterwards.

No woman should be forced to do that against her will for any reason.

Certainly not to provide children for women who can't or won't have their own.


There is no right or wrong time during pregnancy to have an abortion.

It's much safer and easier to terminate earlier rather than later, but not always possible for various reasons which are none of our business.

That's all there is to it, really.

Abortion is a valid part of women's reproductive healthcare and should be treated as such.

I might not approve of a woman who terminates a pregnancy for what I consider a frivolous reason, but she doesn't, and shouldn't, need my approval.
#15005834
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That's just an assertion, not an argument. We could also define "personhood" as having the capacity for consciousness, consistent with our general view that being asleep, unconscious or sedated doesn't mean somebody's life can be taken without repercussions.


A fetus or even a baby doesn't have the capacity for consciousness. You have to bring cognitive experience into the equation somehow, i.e. experience that shapes consciousness later in life. Otherwise infanticide would not be an issue in general.
#15005844
Rugoz wrote:A fetus or even a baby doesn't have the capacity for consciousness. You have to bring cognitive experience into the equation somehow, i.e. experience that shapes consciousness later in life. Otherwise infanticide would not be an issue in general.

The author of the article argues that the brain is developed enough and for the purpose of my objection I took it at face value.
#15005849
Yes a baby most certainty is aware no dount in my mind.
And for those of you talking about a brain . electrical impulses between the mind and heart are what make the heart work in a fetus or adult. a sure sign of life .As for actual consciousness who knows the extent but it shows the mind is active.
What are we but a mind a vessel to soak up experiences and learn.
Yes a fetus has a limited mind compared to a 25 year old adult but it can only absorb more as it grows more. But to me the communication between a newly formed mind and heart clearly show life and intelegence even if rudimentary .are you killing the next steve hawking Einstein or Mother Teresa or Gandhi.
You will never lnow. Its far better to c9ntrol your actions and use devices and meds for prevention.
Which is more diffcult which is morally right .
You can live with shame and a lack of self respect or moral values no doubt .
You csn live with moral values and pride a lot easier .

One last thing I want to say here. ive spent a lot of my life protecting others from others who would harm them.
I was severly injured trying to stop the rape of a teen latino girl by 7 gang bangers .
I dont back down .
We all need to protect eachother I firmly belive human life is special. Unique . above the lesser creatures on earth . perhaps in the entire galaxy maybe even the universe.
Killing our unborn is unexcused except in very limited instances .
We must protect them . birth control is easy . better to not make one then to kill one. That heart beat and electrical signal from the mind is the key to a display of life. Sorry if I used the wrong word or mispelled something or made a type o but evrryth8ng I said here is from my heart. Its not debateable to me only to god and I think if he exists he would agree.
#15005893
Sunttuz yes suntzu you are correct the heart will beat 4 to 10 min after death. In some cases but the mind also functions to a degree but its flooded with a strong hallucinogenic drug before death .
But that has nothing to do with a fetas

Next skinster sorry but the father has a right to imput . its his child to.
Sadly there is no way to know who the father is till little ones come out at least that I know of .
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 22
Capital Punishment

The death penalty is an absurdity because the rac[…]

The left have created a pathetic fantasy world. In[…]

The biggest scandal in American history

Sprinkling incriminating adjectives doesn't help[…]

Israelis nervous about BDS

Arabs may have Palestine only if israel allows it[…]