474 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Obtusifolius wrote...

Oh come on, that's the best bit! I don't think I ever want to have kids, but I do find it sad that if I don't I never get to grow a little pet inside my uterus. It's AMAZING! And the leaky boob bit - that's got to be... interesting.

Good for you then. I, on the other hand, am glad to be male whenever I think about that thing.

Ethical Scabs wrote...

What else can we say to bring this back to a Dragon Age topic?

There HAS to be a tie-in to Morrigan's Dark Ritual.

There is. Morrigan gets a god-child by it and will have to argue whether it is an own entity or part of her, thus making HER a god. That´s what she thinks.

Damn, I just told the true reason for her ritual. Now I spoilt DA2...
Shame on me....

[Ethical Scabs]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
not to deliberately sound callous, but unless the woman/girl was raped, she put it there herself. i find it hard to have any pity.

the point of saying it is a fallacy, is that the whole logic behind the structure of the law is wrong. basically, the woman created a new child and then refuses to accept responsibility for it, citing a claim that just plain incorrect. it's her responsibility, or at least it should be. simultaneously it's the man's responsiblity as well. but we've already forced men into that. we just havent forced the women into it as well.

No, I'm not rejecting your argument on the basis that it's callous, I'm just saying that medically that's like saying that cancer doesn't affect the host. Yeah. It does. It's not pretend, it's not "out there" and it's not a "separate entity" in any way. It's tangled up and has to be treated as part of the host.

I can agree that the structure of the law in this case may be flawed, but I'm addressing biology.

Current law DOES treat the baby as if it were a separate entity, and it is not, and cannot be so until at the minimum, 25 weeks in a highly-functioning NICU.

it only treats it as a separate entity if the woman so chooses. if she chooses not to, before the "deadline," then it is treated as object. the fact of the matter is that the embryo is a separate living thing from the moment of fertilization. normally, people arent allowed to have people killed. in this situation it seems to be an exception since the woman put the other person inside of her.

again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?

Eh.....  the line of other and self gets really blurred there bub.  Also:

1. SHE didn't put it there. THEY BOTH did.

2.She doesn't have to take responsibility for the same reason we have bankruptcy as a way to dodge responsibility -- life for everyone gets really messy if you don't have a method of allowing people 'outs'.

Back on topic-- Morrigan and Pregnancy.

I think it's a trap; a way for Morrigan to give birth to (and possibly merge with) what amounts to the next Flemeth.

Modifié par Ethical Scabs, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:02 .

[TSamee]

Oh, and bringing the Dark Ritual into this (because we really need another topic about it) Morrigan is going to use the God-child to obtain supplementary income from the Warden, which will, naturally, be large (my current Warden's on 90g after buying a 150g unique, and I'm almost halfway through). She will use the soul of the God-child to power a weapon which uses an explosion to fission a cap of pure lyrium, thus releasing a vast burst of magical energy. She will call it a Muke. She will then use her supplementary income (her main income generated from extorting orphans and eating babies in public) to construct a large, lyrium-powered flying machine. She will laugh as she watches the world burn, thousands of feet above the ground. And my Warden will be unhappy, and sue her.

Modifié par TSamee, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:22 .

[Recidiva]

TSamee wrote...

^this. Personally, though it has to be tough as a single mom, and the money helps, using that as an excuse to get a fixed monthly income isn't right in my books. Question: When this happens (in the contexts you see it), is the mother generally desperate, or simply wishing to squeeze cash out of an unwilling father? I don't have much experience here, as this rarely happens in the UAE, and the healthcare available to poorer people in Pakistan is utter balls, thus you just accept the child and marry the girl, or just leave, and she's supported by her family (if she has one. If not... yeah, you get the idea.)

So could someone please explain the current stance on abortions, birth control and family support in the US?

I think it varies entirely from person to person.  The worst problem I see is in over-valuing motherhood and degrading fatherhood, making women seem like they can do no wrong and it's their right to be pretty, pretty princesses and have the man do the heavy lifting.

Unfortunately motherhood can be seen as a lucrative option to employment.  It's possible to have children single and get welfare or child support and the mother does not need to work.

If that option were legally removed...I think more single women would reconsider having children they don't care for and would actually...go get a job instead of becoming a welfare or a child support queen.

If you see the father as a paycheck, what is the kid seen as? 

Fine, fake an injury and go on disability, don't bring a kid into it.  Some fraud has more victims.

Abortion is legal but contentious.  Getting one can be a breeze or can be blocked by protesters depending on which part of the country you live in.

Birth control is available but the government has been supporting a "pro marriage" and "pro abstinence" campaign stance and the education isn't as good as it used to be and it's heavily politically weighted and charged.

Family support can be just as good or just as bad as anywhere else in the world, depending on whose family you're in.

[Ravenman1]

This thread is so full of gender win.

[Squiggles1334]

Recidiva wrote...

JAMiAM wrote...

It's okay to laugh at the nature of my argument.  Just don't giggle at the *size*...

No, never.

But although I understand testosterone can be a curse, thus can estrogen.

Or I'd happily give up a period and all the fun headaches and hormone swings that go with them. 

I apparently I also have a sex drive that got me the nickname "Terminator."   And I'm not alone.  Lots of women experience the same syndrome.

"It's what she does!  It's all she does!  And she absolutely...will...not...stop...until you are dead..." (Nickname courtesy of second husband.)

Listen, and understand. That lady is out there. She can't be bargained with. She can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel modesty, or shyness, or shame. And she absolutely will not stop, EVER, until she is LAID.

[Tirigon]

the_one_54321 wrote...
again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?

Because it´s bad for a child to grow up as an unwanted one, that is only there because law says so, while the mother would have preferred to have it killed.

[the_one_54321]

Ethical Scabs wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

not to deliberately sound callous, but unless the woman/girl was raped, she put it there herself. i find it hard to have any pity.

the point of saying it is a fallacy, is that the whole logic behind the structure of the law is wrong. basically, the woman created a new child and then refuses to accept responsibility for it, citing a claim that just plain incorrect. it's her responsibility, or at least it should be. simultaneously it's the man's responsiblity as well. but we've already forced men into that. we just havent forced the women into it as well.

No, I'm not rejecting your argument on the basis that it's callous, I'm just saying that medically that's like saying that cancer doesn't affect the host. Yeah. It does. It's not pretend, it's not "out there" and it's not a "separate entity" in any way. It's tangled up and has to be treated as part of the host.

I can agree that the structure of the law in this case may be flawed, but I'm addressing biology.

Current law DOES treat the baby as if it were a separate entity, and it is not, and cannot be so until at the minimum, 25 weeks in a highly-functioning NICU.

it only treats it as a separate entity if the woman so chooses. if she chooses not to, before the "deadline," then it is treated as object. the fact of the matter is that the embryo is a separate living thing from the moment of fertilization. normally, people arent allowed to have people killed. in this situation it seems to be an exception since the woman put the other person inside of her.

again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?

Eh..... the line of other and self gets really blurred there bub. Also:



1. SHE didn't put it there. THEY BOTH did.



2.She doesn't have to take responsibility for the same reason we have bankruptcy as a way to dodge responsibility -- life for everyone gets really messy if you don't have a method of allowing people 'outs'.



Back on topic-- Morrigan and Pregnancy.



I think it's a trap; a way for Morrigan to give birth to (and possibly merge with) what amounts to the next Flemeth.

the man is already held responsible, regardless of his opinion of the matter. he helped put it there, but he cant decide to keep it, nor can he decide not to pay for it.



bankruptcy has to do with money and debt, not killing other people. like i said, the fact of the matter is that an embryo is a separate living thing from the moment of conception. there is not blurry line, there is no interpretation, there is the truth, and people who ignore the truth.

[the_one_54321]

Tirigon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?

Because it´s bad for a child to grow up as an unwanted one, that is only there because law says so, while the mother would have preferred to have it killed.

so you're calling it a mercy killing? 

[Recidiva]

the_one_54321 wrote...

it only treats it as a separate entity if the woman so chooses. if she chooses not to, before the "deadline," then it is treated as object. the fact of the matter is that the embryo is a separate living thing from the moment of fertilization. normally, people arent allowed to have people killed. in this situation it seems to be an exception since the woman put the other person inside of her.

again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?

Because forcing people to be parents makes the child suffer more than the parents.  Being a child shouldn't be a punishment or a verdict.  It should be a gift and a privilege.

And biologically, not legally and not emotionally, a child is not a separate entity until potentially minimum 25 weeks, before which, there are other options.  There is a legal determination and first trimester is fair game.  I'm opposed to later trimester abortions and that does seem more like murder.  But when you're dealing with a bunch of cells, it's not murder.  It's preventive medicine.

I take much less of a legal stance here than I do a biological one.  I have had two children and one of my areas of specialization is in fetal medicine, so I'm going to veer it back here as much as possible.  Medical reality and not what someone might think about it.  Literal biological nuts and bolts and how that is experienced as a mother or a medical professional.  There is no such thing as a fetal consult.  You can't ask the "individual" what they want.  It's assumed the baby is not legally consenting.  And as a child, the mother is the consenting adult.  Her opinion is the only one mattering at that point.  The doctor has the mother as a patient, not the fetus.  That changes legally after a certain time passes as well, and then the child's rights take precedence over the mother's choices up to that point.  Doctors will abort before a certain time frame, will not after a certain time frame.  Legally.

Modifié par Recidiva, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:12 .

[SarEnyaDor]

I dislike this thread, and want my money back for posting in it!!



Oh, wait..... :s

[the_one_54321]

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

it only treats it as a separate entity if the woman so chooses. if she chooses not to, before the "deadline," then it is treated as object. the fact of the matter is that the embryo is a separate living thing from the moment of fertilization. normally, people arent allowed to have people killed. in this situation it seems to be an exception since the woman put the other person inside of her.

again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?

Because forcing people to be parents makes the child suffer more than the parents. Being a child shouldn't be a punishment or a verdict. It should be a gift and a privilege.



And biologically, not legally and not emotionally, a child is not a separate entity until potentially minimum 25 weeks, before which, there are other options. There is a legal determination and first trimester is fair game. I'm opposed to later trimester abortions and that does seem more like murder. But when you're dealing with a bunch of cells, it's not murder. It's preventive medicine.



I take much less of a legal stance here than I do a biological one. I have had two children and one of my areas of specialization is in fetal medicine, so I'm going to veer it back here as much as possible. Medical reality and not what someone might think about it. Literal biological nuts and bolts and how that is experienced as a mother.

still sounds like "mercy killing" to me.



also, like i said, there is the truth and those who refuse to acknowledge it. the DNA does not lie, as we have shown in courtrooms time and again since DNA testing was introduced to legal preceding. the embryo is genetically a separate living thing from the moment of conception. once the first cell splits, it has DNA distinctly different from the mother. it is a separate living thing.

[Ethical Scabs]

the_one_54321 wrote...
 there is not blurry line, there is no interpretation, there is the truth, and people who ignore the truth.

Arright dude.  Obviously you're the arbiter of definitions.  Have fun now.

Back on topic.

[bzombo]

TSamee wrote...

Recidiva wrote...

Obtusifolius wrote...

That is a very tricky one. I mean, if the woman accidentally gets pregnant then both parties are to blame for being careless, unless she's lied about being on the pill. The abortion part, though, is difficult. I do think it completly unfair that a guy has to pay maintenance for something he had no choice about keeping, but can you imagine how awful abortion is for some women? Some women are fine with it, others (morons) use it as a method of contraception, but if you are one of those women for who the idea is abhorrent, then it's going to be a pretty nasty decision to make between doing something you find immoral or just incredibly emotionally painful or raising a child with no support from anyone.

So... I couldn't say either point of view is ideal, but... I think the male having to pay maintenance is the better of two crap compromises.

Yeah, it's a very tricky one.  But since it's entirely legally up to the woman, then there has to be a legal choice for the male, who at this point...has none.

I'm a little annoyed that birth control options aren't covered by most insurance companies and certainly not ones that get federal funding...but that just means there's some more work to be done on that front as well.

Kids are tricky, get used to tough questions.

I get angry at women using children as entitled income sources.  To my mind, raising a child is a gift, and if you're not willing to do it on your own and with your whole heart, don't do it.   The law granted women an inalienable right, and with that comes the full weight of the responsibility as well.
 
The options aren't fun and you can always put a child up for adoption.  In the end I truly hope the law would result in more people thinking and fewer people taking advantage of sperm donors and trying to make them parents.

The kids deserve better.  The adults involved need to act like adults.

In other words - don't like it?  Use a condom or abstinence, I'm fine with it.  But don't use a kid to trap an expense account.

^this. Personally, though it has to be tough as a single mom, and the money helps, using that as an excuse to get a fixed monthly income isn't right in my books. Question: When this happens (in the contexts you see it), is the mother generally desperate, or simply wishing to squeeze cash out of an unwilling father? I don't have much experience here, as this rarely happens in the UAE, and the healthcare available to poorer people in Pakistan is utter balls, thus you just accept the child and marry the girl, or just leave, and she's supported by her family (if she has one. If not... yeah, you get the idea.)

So could someone please explain the current stance on abortions, birth control and family support in the US?

one of the more controversial issues in the u.s. i'm pro-choice, but i'd say the nation is very close to 50/50. birth control is used a decent amount, but abortion is sometimes used as a contraceptive, which makes the pro-lifers irate. as far as family support goes, i'm not sure if you mean child support or the support a family gives to their child when they have a kid. if you mean the support a family proivides, i'd say pretty high when the mother is a minor or barely an adult, like 18-19. as you get older, the mother is expected to do more to help herself, although that notion is slowly going out the door. as far as child support, pretty much the man has to pay. this is only now starting to very slowly swing away from always supporting the woman.

Modifié par bzombo, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:19 .

[Bullets McDeath]

I know I'm a man and I have no right to an opinion involving anything even remotely female, but I think we should all pitch in $1.05 and get this thread aborted.

[Recidiva]

the_one_54321 wrote...

still sounds like "mercy killing" to me.

also, like i said, there is the truth and those who refuse to acknowledge it. the DNA does not lie, as we have shown in courtrooms time and again since DNA testing was introduced to legal preceding. the embryo is genetically a separate living thing from the moment of conception. once the first cell splits, it has DNA distinctly different from the mother. it is a separate living thing.

You might, but again I consider it preventive medicine.  There is risk assessment and social choice.  Keep in mind women can die from childbearing or in childbirth and there are many, many women are at high risk.  Abortion for many is what they do to stay alive themselves.

And if a woman is unwilling to be a mother or go through birth or give a child up for adoption, she needs to be able to say "no, I am not risking my life or giving up 9 months of it and take the social stigma hit for someone I don't want to know."

Modifié par Recidiva, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:15 .

[the_one_54321]

Ethical Scabs wrote...

Arright dude. Obviously you're the arbiter of definitions. Have fun now.

i didnt define this. im just reiterating it. you can go and tell the DNA in an embryo it's wrong if you like.

[the_one_54321]

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
still sounds like "mercy killing" to me.

also, like i said, there is the truth and those who refuse to acknowledge it. the DNA does not lie, as we have shown in courtrooms time and again since DNA testing was introduced to legal preceding. the embryo is genetically a separate living thing from the moment of conception. once the first cell splits, it has DNA distinctly different from the mother. it is a separate living thing.

You might, but again I consider it preventive medicine. There is risk assessment and social choice. Keep in mind women can die in childbirth and there are many, many women are at high risk. Abortion for many is what they do to stay alive themselves.
And if a woman is unwilling to be a mother or go through birth or give a child up for adoption, she needs to be able to say "no, I am not risking my life or giving up 9 months of it and take the social stigma hit for someone I don't want to know."

but she caused the problem to begin with. well, she and the man. outside of rape, all pregnancies are 100% preventable.

one of the things that bugs me about all this is that the woman and man acted responsibly, and the child is the one that pays the price. usually the child is the one that pays the price no matter what the woman chooses.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:17 .

[TSamee]

Recidiva wrote...

TSamee wrote...

^this. Personally, though it has to be tough as a single mom, and the money helps, using that as an excuse to get a fixed monthly income isn't right in my books. Question: When this happens (in the contexts you see it), is the mother generally desperate, or simply wishing to squeeze cash out of an unwilling father? I don't have much experience here, as this rarely happens in the UAE, and the healthcare available to poorer people in Pakistan is utter balls, thus you just accept the child and marry the girl, or just leave, and she's supported by her family (if she has one. If not... yeah, you get the idea.)

So could someone please explain the current stance on abortions, birth control and family support in the US?

I think it varies entirely from person to person.  The worst problem I see is in over-valuing motherhood and degrading fatherhood, making women seem like they can do no wrong and it's their right to be pretty, pretty princesses and have the man do the heavy lifting.

Unfortunately motherhood can be seen as a lucrative option to employment.  It's possible to have children single and get welfare or child support and the mother does not need to work.

If that option were legally removed...I think more single women would reconsider having children they don't care for and would actually...go get a job instead of becoming a welfare or a child support queen.

If you see the father as a paycheck, what is the kid seen as? 

Fine, fake an injury and go on disability, don't bring a kid into it.  Some fraud has more victims.

Abortion is legal but contentious.  Getting one can be a breeze or can be blocked by protesters depending on which part of the country you live in.

Birth control is available but the government has been supporting a "pro marriage" and "pro abstinence" campaign stance and the education isn't as good as it used to be and it's heavily politically weighted and charged.

Family support can be just as good or just as bad as anywhere else in the world, depending on whose family you're in.

Ah, cool, thanks for clarifying. The second I read the posts I assumed that people  would capitalise on the welfare as an excuse to remain unemployed, but I wanted to know if women did this out of desperation (bad education, poor family, can't bring up child, etc.) or out of laziness. Hmmm... Though I hate the whole "welfare queen" mentality with every fibre of my soul, I think it's unfair on the child if their mother's income (which, let's hope, feeds and clothes them) is cut purely because the father says so. For all we know, the father could wish the child had never been born, and the mother could just see the kid as a paycheck. It's a sad existence, but it could be made much worse if uncaring fathers could simply cut they kids' economic lifeline on a whim.

The moderate solution I see:

If the father chooses to cut the mother's income, a reason must be provided, and the mother needs to be evidently capable of supporting herself. If deemed incapable, and the father is incapable of providing the monthly income, she should be put on government welfare or left with a consenting relative (sorry, the hypercapitalist "go out and die" mentality annoys me too), and the child will either also be left with said relatives, or brought up as an orphan. It is sad, I know, but growing up with a cold, calculating mum and a dad who just doesn't give a **** can't be nice either.'

This is probably packed with flaws, but I haven't given it much thought, and right now it's as close as I can get realistically to what seems right.

Modifié par TSamee, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:20 .

[Ethical Scabs]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ethical Scabs wrote...
Arright dude. Obviously you're the arbiter of definitions. Have fun now.

i didnt define this. im just reiterating it. you can go and tell the DNA in an embryo it's wrong if you like.

There's actually some very good examples of multi-cellular organisms where this isn't the case though.  Mitochondria and chloroplasts for instance.  They have their own DNA, separate from that of the cell they are in.  Does this mean they are a separate organism?  That'd be silly.

Modifié par Ethical Scabs, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:17 .

[Bibdy]

This thread is ****ing hilarious. What happens when stupid people get their hands on a keyboard.

[Recidiva]

the_one_54321 wrote...

but she caused the problem to begin with. well, she and the man. outside of rape, all pregnancies are 100% preventable.

Actually she and a participant "caused" the "problem" and she can "cause" the solution.

Babies are not problems to be solved.  And if you want to punish someone into being a parent, I will simply choose to disagree that this is a productive or socially beneficial arrangement for anyone.

[Tirigon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?

Because it´s bad for a child to grow up as an unwanted one, that is only there because law says so, while the mother would have preferred to have it killed.

so you're calling it a mercy killing? 

It´s a difficult matter that should not be summed up in harsh sentences like that.

I think people should be responsible for their actions - and that involves (rape being a different matter, of course) getting pregnant. However, thinking of what you read in the newspaper of parents killing their children, or abusing and then killing them, an abortion would be the lesser evil, I think.
After all, you "only" kill an embryo, which, most probably, has no feelings. If the child is born and then murdered it feels pain, and the outcome is the same - it´s dead. But with more suffering.
So, in some cases, I think an abortion is the best thing.

I completely agree with you that grown people should be able to avoid getting pregnant if they don´t wish to have a child. Unfortunately, though, that is not the reality.