Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Can't actually comprehend how this could even happen.
Let's stop killing babies.
and it's not one I'm going to commit to sitting on either side of the fence of, but I genuinely think pro-life laws (and to a certain extent religion) encourage the keeping together of the family unit - something that is fast dwindling in society.
The figures show that children raised in a 'nuclear family' environment are more likely to outperform those outside of what's fast being forgotten as the traditional family unit. Figures also show that the 'nuclear family' model is more prevalent in countries with anti-abortion laws and anti-abortion stigmas.
Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that every child born out of wedlock/into a loveless relationship is destined to be raised on a diet of broken biscuits (I know one or two that have done reasonably well for themselves), I'm just chipping in with the figures.
don't just take my word for it - find out for yourself.
Is the real issue
is somehow less valid than anyone else's?
it's gone 10pm on the last Friday before Christmas. nobody needs to hear one of this board's regular trollmrrrrrrrrrs espousing half-baked social theory.
Presumably you celebrate Christmas then? A story which (be it true or metaphor) espouses the sacred beauty of life, and the reward of sticking together throughout the most difficult times.
It's not my intention to ruffle anybody's feathers, I'm entitled to my opinion surely?
^ it's my autofill now. this is even easier!
You're only embarrassing yourself.
by having lots to say and it all being garbage
?apart from "fuck off"? Do me a favour.
I reckon if there is an association between nuclear families and 'performance' it isnt because the former causes the later, non-nuclear families are probably more likely to overrepresent lower income families (lower marriage age/more likely to split, various other pressures more likely to split) and so that outperforming probably isnt to do with the nuclear family but all the other advantages people in better off families have.
I'd be inclined to disagree - but that's just my experience; although I think you've certainly hit upon something re:wealth. To me, the idea of one or two people either choosing to have an abortion due to their socio-economic circumstances is utterly abhorrent, and the idea of a government supporting abortions for those in such situations (it's cheaper) is completely against the natural order of the universe.
There are lesser-educated women from lower-class backgrounds who genuinely can't find a job, and have nothing going for them, and see having a child as a means of landing on their feet - council house, no more signing on, child benefit, and it's completely understandable.
whereby a woman falsely claimed they were taking the contraceptive pill, to purposely become with child? Should a man have a say re: abortion?
oh no wait it's a shit question
you haven't answered it CA.
that you should fuck off
repeatedly telling me to "fuck off",k yet I'm the "troll". Grow up.
don't wrestle with chimney sweeps.
in the space of about five posts you've gone from "the evidence says" to "it would be a crime AGAINST THE UNIVERSE" to misogynistic invented moral quandaries about harlot women.
basically, you're a boring troll, and i'm back to square one: fuck off.
I've suggested that our greedy, patriarchal society forces some women into aborting wanted children in order to maintain their lifestyle/career, and forces some into birthing unwanted children in order to simply get by, scenarios which are completely against the natural order of things.
But hey, that's just what I think.
what do either of those things have to do with abortion laws though? are you saying in that first scenario if the laws were different those people wouldn't have the option so wouldnt be 'forced' into making a decision they didnt want to, follow that through to its conclusion you might have made things better for one little group but worse for so many more people, and women in general (and not even better for that group as you are taking a way an option they would have chosen for so its like you think you know them better then they do). Sorry if I have completely misrepresented your point, but I cant see how else it would have any relevance
we're encouraged to do well, be affluent, consume, to the point where a woman, or a couple, will make an informed decision to perform a destructive act, in the pursuit of what exactly?
Likewise, imagine a woman with child who decides to get rid because she can't afford it. Nobody should have to live through that.
Yet abortion is routinely encouraged.
Perhaps you're all virgins with no life experience whatsoever.
Talk to me when you're old enough to buy cigarettes.
The problem is that you have not understood it.
Is this a new name for an old dolt or a new dolt?
It's not a complex issue at all, at least from a legislative point of view. People should be allowed to do with their bodies as they wish, if it does not result in harm to themselves or others. A collection of cells does not have the same rights as the woman who contains them. Banning abortion as exemplified eslewhere simply forces desperate individuals into the hands of the black market or abroad, further increasing the chanches of completely unnecessary stress and damage to the women in question. Bleating about "family units" is the most shameful jizzing into the waters imaginable.
I wholeheartedly agree that people should "do with their bodies as they wish, if it does not result in harm to themselves or others", but you're an idiot. Do you have any children? Are you qualified to make such a statement?
What if the resulting abortion causes untold harm to the man looking forward to being a father? Does the father not have a say in how the "collection of cells" should develop?
"Are you qualified to make such a statement?"
on account of the site being borked.
``What if the resulting abortion causes untold harm to the man looking forward to being a father? Does the father not have a say in how the "collection of cells" should develop?``
Of course the father shouldn't have a say. He's not the one who's pregnant, ffs.
for the next 21 years? What's the difference?
Are you proposing that it is acceptable to force a woman to go through with the pregnancy against her will?
I'm proposing that a man should have a choice to be financially involved or not.
That's okay - apparently it is a complex issue.
your straw advocate is so shoddily built it's not worth engaging with it at all. Not really blaming you, you've spent a couple of months out, but get up to speed on reddit or something first before trying this kind of thing on here. CG and Raanraals can both play in your position and they are much more comfortable on the ball as it stands.
Unsourced stats leading outright wrong statement about benefits of nuclear families - check.
'Just chipping in with the facts and figures' [presents not facts or figures] - check.
Focus on men's rights over women's - check.
"It's just my opinion" when pressed on specifics - check.
"It's a complex issue" when pressed on specifics - check.
Forced economic abortions argument - check.
You can't understand until you have kids - check.
Mention of informed consent without acknowledging that UK abortion practice is gold standard for achieving IC - check.
as much as anything, I'd assume there are far more nuclear families in traditional, Catholic Spain than there are in many more economically successful countries - in fact, if you looks at the PIGS, they're all pretty religious counties where I doubt abortion is looked on kindly as a rule. And you know, at the risk of point out the obvious (I REALISE YOU'RE JUST TROLLING BUT ETC) the reason banning abortions might preserve the nuclear family is clearly because it can force young people into marrying somebody they had sex with once, which probably isn't the perfect recipe for happiness...
countries that are more likely to have anti abortion laws are also have more pressure for families to not divorce so much.
What you say is not a cause of the effect of more nuclear families. What you are identifying is that they have a raft of attitudes which result in two DIFFERENT (and unrelated.....except for having common causes) effects.
type username on here so unbearable.
or are they all just the same user
back to the drawing board
For one group of people to pass a law about another group of people like this.
A predominantly male parliament passing a law forbidding women from abortion is not ok.
This is a life-changing issue that should not be at the whim of a political party trying to reconcile its more extreme supporters. If there really is such popular support for this,then put it to a referendum (that women can participate in) and be done with the issue for once and all.
And poor people aborting due to economic costs:
Surely, instead of rolling back abortion rights, there are other approaches. Mandatory counselling for would-be abortees, a couple of sessions for them to be able to explore their feelings before deciding. This could include seeing testimony of people who have had abortions.
Also, Governments of low population growth countries should always have tax and benefit incentives to encourage low-income families.
of western governments reverting back to puritanical values when it's obviously so far from how most people, especially younger generations, live their lives. This in Spain and Ireland, repeal of gay marriage in Australia, internet censorship over here. People like Anjem Choudhury who would take society back to the dark ages must be rubbing their hands with glee.
It's just clear to me that we're no longer trusted to make good life decisions on our own, no matter how bad the decisions being made on our behalf.
without dismantling capitalism & patriarchy
It prevents safe abortions.
A ridiculous point.
missus kick you out?
maybe the first sentence you could say about anything else that is outlawed, but not really the second? except drugs use possibly at a stretch
Pretty much any medical or similar procedure, actually.
Laser eye surgery, say. Tattooing, perhaps.
still think it is a stretch to say 'almost anything', and seriously doubt you would get many backstreet laser eye surgeries or other medical things if they were outlawed, and think if tattooing were outlawed and went underground it would probably be pretty safe
'Outlawing abortion doesn't prevent abortion and is stupid and backward'
you're comparing the need for tattooing and abortion as comparable services?
You cannot 'say the same' about tattooing and abortion. I'm not going to explain why because to do so would be make me feel as though I've been trolled to absolute fuck.
after Sheeeiiit/JamEater's commitment to trolling/monumental idiocy, that such stalwarts as CG and Raanraals would decide to wade in with such half-baked efforts.
tattooing are comparable to abortions here.
that ThingsThatFly compared the need for drugs and abortion as "comparable services", if that's the line you're taking with my post.
I wasn't comparing them, I was just pointing out that 'You can say that about almost anything. A ridiculous point.' isnt really true, with drugs one exception I could think of, wasn't saying I thought that is in anyway similar to abortion, nor do I think you were comparing laser eye surgery or tattooing, it was just a tangent on the argument of whether things should be outlawed if it doesnt stop it happening anyway is a good enough reason to not outlaw something (which in this case is all irrelevant because obviously abortion should not be outlawed)
Thank you for not wilfully missing the point like jonny_rat did.
There are simply many much better arguments in this thread as to why abortion shouldn't be outlawed than, "Outlawing abortion doesn't prevent abortions. It prevents safe abortions."
angry with, but I'm also intensely irritated with the suggestion that prevention of safe abortions isn't an important point here, as per Robeson's post. All the data I've ever seen on the topic is that introducing harsher abortion laws proportionally increases the number of illegal abortions (or people travelling to get abortions, which poses less of a health risk but introduces a massive cost barrier). It is one of the key - like, one of the most important and relevant - arguments in the abortion debate. Where abortions are in demand, abortions will be performed. And unsafe abortion is a huge source of mortality in women: WHO figures from 1998 were 200 women worldwide per day.
The tattooing/laser eye surgery stuff is an absolutely absurd point to even bring up: the point being in those posts above that 'banning tattooing doesn't prevent tattooing, it just prevents safe tattooing.' Why would you bring this up in a debate about abortion? Do you think that the consequences of tattooing are in any way relevant to the consequences of abortion? Or are you making a different point here (and I will genuinely apologise if you are)? Talk me through this, because rather than any willful missing of points here, what I'm really struggling to see how it isn't massively offensive.
The most commonly cited example is SA, where over six years they achieved a 50% drop in the number of unsafe abortions via a (quite slight) liberalisation in abortion laws.
Utter name googlers.
and they let you down.