Abortion

IBDaMann said:
Scott said:
I think of life as something like a casino
Click to expand...
That's a mistake. A casino represents a limited set of options, all of which are stacked against you.
Click to expand...

I think for a lot of humanity, that's a fairly accurate representation of their state of affairs:
inequality.org

Global Inequality - Inequality.org

Our world's deepest pockets—"ultra high net worth individuals"—hold an astounding share of global wealth, and inequality is rampant.
inequality.org inequality.org

IBDaMann said:
Life is more like a ship on voyage, with you as the Captain. You don't necessarily get to choose the ship or the weather, but you certainly get to choose the direction and how you handle every situation.
Click to expand...

I can agree to that too. For whatever reason, it makes me think of a somewhat dark poem involving a captain, Invictus:
poets.org

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me
poets.org poets.org

It also makes me think of another poem that's more upbeat, at least if you play your cards right:
 
IBDaMann said:
Scott said:
I think of life as something like a casino- we all make gambles in our choices.
Click to expand...
Just as "definition" is the wrong word for discussing disctionaries, "gamble" is the wrong word for discussing life. Just as "usage" is the correct word for discussing words, "risk" and "uncertainty" are the correct words for describing what you are trying to express.
Click to expand...

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on a lot of your assertions here. The words you prefer are frequently synonyms for the words I'm using. Taking a gamble is synonymous with taking a risk. From The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
Gamble:
-To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
-An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk.
**
Source:
www.wordnik.com

gamble — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words
www.wordnik.com www.wordnik.com

Now, you could argue that while risk and gamble -can- mean the same thing, gamble generally has more negative connotations. Fair enough, but for me, it also seems funner than just taking risks all the time. And I say that not as someone who actually -likes- going to a casino, just someone that finds the metaphor of a casino representing life's choices to be appealing.
 
IBDaMann said:
Scott said:
I think of life as something like a casino- we all make gambles in our choices. Sometimes our gambles pay off, sometimes they don't.
Click to expand...
This skewed view is indicative of an "Unplanned Pregnancy" fallacy in which one is treating "arbitrary" as "random". Here, you are wrap all of one's deliberate choices and risk amelioration as "random occurrence." It gives the false impression that one has no control over anything, i.e. that everything is random anyway.
Click to expand...

And to think, if I'd just said "sometimes the risks we take pay off, sometimes they don't", you would have been fine with what I said eh :-p?
 
Scott said:
I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on a lot of your assertions here.
Click to expand...
You always say that when you are egregiously mistaken or when you are being EVASIVE. You still haven't answered any of my questions whereas I have answered all of yours.

Scott said:
The words you prefer are frequently synonyms for the words I'm using.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Your English vocabulary leaves something to be desired and your command of English grammar is atrocious.

Scott said:
Taking a gamble is synonymous with taking a risk.
Click to expand...
Gambling is an entirely random endeavor whereas accepting a risk implies a certain margin of uncertainty in an otherwise controlled situation. If you don't understand the difference, you should be asking me to teach you, your unwillingness to learn notwithstanding.
 
IBDaMann said:
Scott said:
I think of life as something like a casino- we all make gambles in our choices. Sometimes our gambles pay off, sometimes they don't. I don't regret having sex with the 3 women in question. Perhaps you could say I got lucky in how things turned out.
Click to expand...
How did they turn out? Why would you have regrets?
Click to expand...

I had no children with any of them, which was good since I wasn't financially prepared to have children at the time. I imagine I would probably have had regrets if I -did- have a child with one or more of them, for the same reason.
 
IBDaMann said:
Scott said:
Now that I think about it, there was no verbal agreement as to what would happen if any of them got pregnant.
Click to expand...
Pure irresponsibility across the board, legitimized by the bogus idea that everything is random anyway.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you get this idea that I thought that "everything is random anyway". What I know is that in all cases, I either used protection or my partner was on the pill. So I clearly took steps to minimize the chance of getting my partners pregnant, but minimizing risks is not the same thing as avoiding them altogether. But I suspect that even you'd agree that you can't avoid risks in life- you can just try to ensure to avoid taking risks that aren't worth the potential reward.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Scott said:
Indeed. For the audience, we're talking about consensual sex here. Because of her choice, if she gets pregnant, she will have to make the generally difficult choice of whether to bring her pregnancy to term or whether to terminate the pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I also think she should be libel under law to inform the man involved and seek his agreement to anything she chooses. That's fair and equal.
Click to expand...

Only if she made an agreement with the man that she would do this -prior- to having sex or at least prior to finding out she's pregnant. Otherwise, if she gets pregnant, I believe she should have the right to have an abortion or (if she carries the pregnancy to term) seek child support from the man who impregnated her.

T. A. Gardner said:
Scott said:
If the 2 people have -actually- made a contract, such as birth surrogacy, that'd be one thing. But most of the time, there is no contract made, unless we're talking about the contract of marriage. Thus, the default laws kick into play- abortion is legally an option in some places, in other's, it's not. If the pregnancy -is- brought to term though, the father is legally required to support the child, assuming he can do so. I believe that's as it should be.
Click to expand...
They made a verbal contract.
Click to expand...

Did they? I know that I made no verbal contracts with the 3 women I had sex with on what would happen if she got pregnant with my sperm. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I used protection, or my partner was on the pill. But these things fail sometimes. I find it fortunate that they didn't in my own experience.

T. A. Gardner said:
She and he agreed to have sex. That's the contract. Both knew what the potential outcomes of that act might be.
Click to expand...

That type of contract should have only one result- that neither partner sues the other for the act of sex itself. Simply consenting to have sex with someone says nothing about what will be done if the female gets pregnant.

T. A. Gardner said:
The way it is now, it's all one-sided in favor of the woman. She gets to decide everything unilaterally up until birth. Suddenly, upon birth, the man is now libel for 50% of the cost of raising the child while he got no say in anything during the pregnancy. That is NOT fair and equal.
Click to expand...

Neither is the burden of pregnancy. Again, if a man wants a say in what happens if a woman gets pregnant with his sperm, he should work that out before having sex with her.
 
IBDaMann said:
Teachable moment: In the English language, when the gender is not known for a singular individual, "he" is to be used.
Click to expand...

You apparently haven't heard of the new trend on this:
**
In modern times, generic he has come under a lot of scrutiny, leading to discussions about inclusivity and a shift away from unnecessarily gendered pronouns (like generic he). With the intention of making writing more inclusive and accessible in such cases, prominent style guides began making a range of suggestions such as including both singular pronouns (e.g. he/she), using parentheses to combine pronouns (e.g. (s)he), or for the especially progressive at the time, leading the pair with the female pronoun (e.g. she or he):

  • If someone needs to go to the hospital, he/she should probably take his/her insurance card.
  • If someone needs to go to the hospital, (s)he should probably take his/her insurance card.
  • If someone needs to go to the hospital, she or he should probably take her or his insurance card.
But some argued that is a lot of extra key-strokes and can become as much of a distraction to a reader as not having their (see what we did there?) pronouns acknowledged in a document.

Speakers have always had a simple, efficient solution all along (remember the note about the 14th century above?): they works just fine to describe an unknown (or even known, if you do not want to give away their identity) individual. At the English Language Institute, we maintain that the below sentences are natural, comprehensible, acceptable, inclusive, and dare we say, ‘correct’:

  • The fridge at work stinks because someone left their lunch leftovers in it all weekend.
  • At the beginning of the quarter a teacher should let a student know exactly how much work they will be required to do to pass the course.
Style guides have taken note of this movement towards using they/them/their as pronouns to describe individuals when the gender is unknown or irrelevant. As of 2019, the American Psychological Association (APA) included in their style guide, “The singular ‘they’ is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Use of the singular ‘they’ is endorsed as part of APA Style because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender.” The Modern Language Association (MLA) and Chicago Manual of Style have not been as enthusiastic in advocating for the use of they/them/their as singular, gender-neutral pronouns, but have both included the usage as an option for writers in their latest updates. At this point, a writer should feel confident that they have the support of most major style guides if they chose to use they/them/their as a singular pronoun in their writing.

Another consideration to make when using they/them/their as a singular pronoun is that not only can these pronouns be used to be gender-neutral, but also to reflect a particular person’s gender identity. There are people, for example some members of the trans[gender] community, who prefer to be referred to using they/them/their pronouns not because these pronouns indicate that their gender is unknown or irrelevant, but for exactly the opposite reason. For these individuals, they/them/their is a way of having their gender identity seen and acknowledged. All of the style guides agree that knowing and respecting an individual’s pronouns when a writer is describing them is a best practice.
**

Source:

Singular ‘they’: A user’s guide | English Language Institute

esl.uchicago.edu esl.uchicago.edu
 
Scott said:
I had no children with any of them, which was good
Click to expand...
That's a terrible thing to say about your own children, i.e. "I'm glad I never had them"

Scott said:
since I wasn't financially prepared to have children at the time.
Click to expand...
Are there children in this world who are born into worse financial situations who nonetheless are loved and do well? Do those children regret having been born, or do they place a premium on family?

Scott said:
I imagine I would probably have had regrets if I -did-
Click to expand...
That's a shitty thing to say about your own children.

Scott said:
have a child with one or more of them, for the same reason.
Click to expand...
You would regret having a child due to the inconvenience of having a child? That's a shitty thing to say.
 
Scott said:
You apparently haven't heard of the new trend on this:
Click to expand...

You apparently never heard that "new trends" aren't necessarily good or acceptable.

The latest controversial trend on OnlyFans involves female creators attempting to break records for the highest number of sexual partners in a single day, turning sex into a competitive spectacle. This phenomenon has sparked widespread concern among health professionals, ethicists, and even some members of the adult content community.
Click to expand...

Key Trends in Shoplifting Today

- Organized Retail Crime (ORC): Groups are coordinating thefts across multiple stores and cities, often using social media and encrypted messaging apps to plan and execute large-scale heists.

- Flash Mob Tactics: Some incidents involve dozens of individuals swarming a store simultaneously, overwhelming staff and security. These events are often filmed and shared online, adding a layer of notoriety.

- High-Tech Theft: Thieves are using tools like signal jammers, fake barcodes, and even AI-generated deepfakes to bypass security systems or impersonate employees.
Click to expand...

Gambling addiction in 2025 is being reshaped by technology, culture, and accessibility—creating new challenges for individuals, families, and public health systems. Here’s a breakdown of the most pressing trends:

1. Surge in Online & Sports Betting Addiction
2. Mental Health Crisis
3. Youth Vulnerability
4. Tech-Driven Addiction Loops
5. Regulatory Pushback
Click to expand...
 
Scott said:
Not sure where you get this idea that I thought that "everything is random anyway".
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you are denying it, other than to buy more time. Let me know when you're going to address my questions.

Scott said:
What I know is that in all cases, I either used protection or my partner was on the pill.
Click to expand...
You engaged in risk reduction but you accepted the risk nonetheless.

Scott said:
So I clearly took steps to minimize the chance of getting my partners pregnant,
Click to expand...
Nope. You took steps to reduce the risk, not to minimize it. Abstinence is needed to minimize the risk of pregnancy.

Scott said:
but minimizing risks is not the same thing as avoiding them altogether.
Click to expand...
Teachable Moment: Yes, to minimize risk, you must reduce risk to the minimum, which is zero in this case. Only abstinence minimizes risk of pregnancy. All other risk-reduction is non-minimizing.
 
Yakuda said:
Scott said:
Yakuda said:
No hang on. you say the woman should do what she wants with the sperm. Fine. But then the man is off the hook. He decided to make a deposit but she decided to receive the deposit.
Click to expand...
Think of it this way- I give you a seed for a tree. Once given, the seed is yours to do with as you wish. Now, it would ofcourse be different if I gave you a seed after signing a contract wherein you said you'd do x or y with the seed if you manage to get it to grow. This is called birth surrogacy, and there are certainly laws on that:
The Legal Ethics of Birth Surrogacy: Theory and Practice | Georgetown Law

Failing the signing of such a contract, it's up to you what you do with it. Now, ofcourse, there are added complications when it comes to a -human- seed, namely that, unlike a seed for a tree, there are legal obligations once a human seed starts to grow inside a womb.

What those legal obligations are depends on where you reside. I personally believe that since the garden wherein the seed grows is a woman's, she should have the choice whether she wants to keep growing the seed or whether she removes it. If she chooses to keep it, there are legal obligations regarding taking care of the seed after it leaves the garden. There, both parents have an obligation. And again, if a potential father doesn't want to be a father, he should be careful as to who he gives his seed to.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about as a seed isnt created by the behavior of the two parties.
Click to expand...

True, but not my point.

Yakuda said:
If the woman wants control of her body then fine. The problem is a fetus is NOT her body and she has no right to control the mans money.
Click to expand...

The fetus is housed within her body. If you want some measure of control over what happens to your seed after you give it to a fertile female via her vaginal cavity, you need to make a contract -before- doing so.
 
Yakuda said:
Scott said:
Again, I think it'd depend on the life in question. Surely you realize that the alien in the original alien film had some strong similarities to a fetus when they initially found them.
Click to expand...
AGAIN no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I suggest you take a look at the film Alien if you haven't already done so. There's even been a parody of a certain scene from the film that I think hints at the parallels between the infant aliens and pregnancy:
**
The "chestburster" effect was parodied in Mel Brooks's comedy Spaceballs. Near the end, in a diner, John Hurt does a cameo appearance as a customer who seems to be suffering indigestion. He turns out to have an "alien" in his gut, and moans, "Oh, no...not again!" The "alien" then does a song-and-dance, singing a line of "Hello, Ma Baby", from the classic Warner Bros. cartoon One Froggy Evening.[184]
**

Source:
en.wikipedia.org

Alien (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Scott said:
True, but not my point.



The fetus is housed within her body. If you want some measure of control over what happens to your seed after you give it to a fertile female via her vaginal cavity, you need to make a contract -before- doing so.
Click to expand...
No the contract was signed when she made her vagina available for puncture. I have no problem if she wants unilateral control however the trade off is she then has unilateral responsibility. I don't want to hear the bs about her demanding child support from the man while have control.
 
IBDaMann said:
Scott said:
Alright, yes, I should have said [the living humans inside the womb], not [the living human inside the womb].
Click to expand...
FTFY. Don't think I am not noticing your absolute avoidance of recognizing that each and every abortion is a contracted killing [snip]
Click to expand...

I'm not 'avoiding' saying that, I and many other people simply don't believe that abortions qualify as contracted killings, full stop. One thing I will say, however, is that I sometimes -do- use the term 'living human' in abortion discussions- I think it is at times useful to have a word that groups together different stages of human development.

As an aside, I decided to look up the definition of sperm and was deeply rewarded when I came across this simple yet powerful definition:
**
The male seed of any kind, as the semen or seminal fluid of the higher vertebrates, the male spawn or milt of the lower vertebrates, or the seminal elements of any animal, containing the male germs, or spermatozoa.
**

Source:
www.wordnik.com

sperm — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words
www.wordnik.com www.wordnik.com

No one disputes that seeds are part of the first stage of development of plants. Similarly, I think it stands to reason that sperms and eggs should be seen as the first stage of human development. As someone else pointed out, the 2 must be joined to actually create a new human being, but that doesn't change the fact that both are absolutely crucial for a new human being to reach maturity.
 
Scott said:
They most definitely do, though they ofcourse have to first join with a female egg and at least get to the stage of a human fetus to do so.
Click to expand...
Then that poster was accurate sperm don't become children, sperm AND egg do. Are you one of those people that think guns kill people? LMFAO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top