• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Paper Abortions

Belz... said:
I think that's the whole point that people are trying to make to you: you can't solve human behaviour by asking people to act inhumanly.

And since you're too bored to look back, here's my earlier point: yes, sex is a bit unique. Not because it's magical, but because it's such a fundamental aspect of life. In fact, reproduction might be the most fundamental thing about all life forms. So it might require very specific solutions to its related issues, ones that don't require people to act like they're not alive.
Click to expand...

"Use a condom" is an inhumanly difficult task? That is news to me. I've used condoms many times. Am I somehow superhuman? (Some have said so, but I think that was endorphins and afterglow.)
 
Belz... said:
AGAIN you're putting words in my mouth. What's wrong with you?

I didn't say anything about condoms or about difficult tasks.

For ****'s sake is it that hard to read posts with any other optics than finding something to disagree with?
Click to expand...

What then is the "inhuman" behavior you said I'm asking people to do? What's wrong with you is vaguely alluding to what you want to accuse me of then getting mad when I haven't read your mind.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What then is the "inhuman" behavior you said I'm asking people to do?
Click to expand...

It was a general statement, not one directed at you. And in the general, the idea that people should practice abstinence is sure one I'd call borderline inhuman.

What's wrong with you is vaguely alluding to what you want to accuse me of then getting mad when I haven't read your mind.
Click to expand...

But you don't need to TRY to read my mind over and over. I don't understand this tendency that you have of trying to ascertain what other thoughts I might have that I didn't post. Why not just limit yourself to what's written?
 
Belz... said:
It was a general statement, not one directed at you. And in the general, the idea that people should practice abstinence is sure one I'd call borderline inhuman.
Click to expand...

Since I didn't and don't advocate abstinence your general statement has nothing to do with me. I don't see why im expected to defend a position I'm not taking, or why you imagine I should. Don't quote specific posts to argue against something they don't say then wonder why anybody's confused by your remarks.

But you don't need to TRY to read my mind over and over. I don't understand this tendency that you have of trying to ascertain what other thoughts I might have that I didn't post. Why not just limit yourself to what's written?
Click to expand...

I mean this in the nicest possible way but perhaps the problem isn't with me. Have you not noticed that many threads in which you participate end up in the same place? You complaining people aren't responding to what you're saying but what you're saying isn't clear because you are making vague references to previous posts and even, as you admit you just did, quoting some posts to argue against some other point entirely?

Frankly: nobody can limit themselves to what's written if what's written isn't clear.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Since I didn't and don't advocate abstinence your general statement has nothing to do with me.
Click to expand...

That's what I just said.

I don't see why im expected to defend a position I'm not taking
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to defend it.

My specific point to you is that your solutions (e.g. using other orifices) might not be realistic.

I mean this in the nicest possible way but perhaps the problem isn't with me.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that you think our disagreement isn't your fault. :)

Have you not noticed that many threads in which you participate end up in the same place?
Click to expand...

Yes, I've noticed that strawmen are very often used by a number of posters, deliberately or not. Some (not you) have even become experts at doing that. Maybe it's a result of the environment, I don't know. I do know that I'm far from the only 'victim' and I often have to point it out for others as well.

Frankly: nobody can limit themselves to what's written if what's written isn't clear.
Click to expand...

Of course they can. They can ask for clarification rather than wildly speculating. There's no reason why one should make up their own answers when none are provided. That's religious thinking.
 
Get a room, you two.

Anyway it sounds like the States could learn a lot from the way the UK does it.

We do seem to have a lot of stuff where relatively poor people end up in extremely discouraging debt and/or prison for no astonishingly good reason.
 
Belz... said:
That's what I just said.







I didn't ask you to defend it.



My specific point to you is that your solutions (e.g. using other orifices) might not be realistic.







I'm shocked that you think our disagreement isn't your fault. :)







Yes, I've noticed that strawmen are very often used by a number of posters, deliberately or not. Some (not you) have even become experts at doing that. Maybe it's a result of the environment, I don't know. I do know that I'm far from the only 'victim' and I often have to point it out for others as well.







Of course they can. They can ask for clarification rather than wildly speculating. There's no reason why one should make up their own answers when none are provided. That's religious thinking.
Click to expand...
Tragicmonkey has not offered any "solution".

What he has said numerous times is that there are ways to reduce the risk of pregnancy when two fertile people of the opposite sex have a sexual encounter.

He has also said those ways are not 100% risk free.

He has also said that if two fertile people of different sex have a sexual encounter they have to accept a risk that a child may be the outcome of that encounter despite their precautions as it is not possible for two fertile people of the opposite sex to have a sexual encounter that is a 100% free of the risk of a child being the outcome.

Now please don't go quote mining his post with a "ah he put a comma there so that means.." rubbish. The above is his clearly offered opinions.

What do you disagree with him regarding the above.
 
Moving on.

Ultimately the solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy will be technological. The invention of effective but extremely easy and foolproof contraception which is then socially engineered to widespread adoption. For instance, reversible sterilization via a one-time ingestion of nanobots. Government could offer a payment of a few hundred bucks to young teenagers who undergo it, to encourage it. Then if they ever want to reproduce both parties can have the procedure reversed.

"That sounds sci-fi dystopian!" I can hear some thinking. Like anything humans ever do yes, such a system could be abused. On the other hand it would be very very popular because we'd essentially be paying people to make their own sex lives much easier.
 
Darat said:
Tragicmonkey has not offered any "solution".

What he has said numerous times is that there are ways to reduce the risk of pregnancy when two fertile people of the opposite sex have a sexual encounter.

He has also said those ways are not 100% risk free.
Click to expand...

Darat, a way to reduce risk is a sort of solution, like seatbelts are a solution to car deaths. Of course nothing is risk free. I think you misunderstand what I'm disagreeing with TM on.
 
Belz... said:
Darat, a way to reduce risk is a sort of solution, like seatbelts are a solution to car deaths. Of course nothing is risk free. I think you misunderstand what I'm disagreeing with TM on.
Click to expand...
Your response shows you don't know what Tragicmonkey has been saying over many posts.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I suggest we move back to discussing the topic instead of discussing the discussion.
Click to expand...
In a world where "paper abortions" were a thing, how many children to how many different women would a man be allowed to have without supporting them?
 
One question relevant to the topic is simply the pragmatic one: would paper abortions lead to better or worse outcomes for all concerned?

3point14 has made the point that if men who were not interested in or incapable of the responsibilities of fatherhood could get a "paper abortion", this might discourage their partners from carrying the pregnancy to term. That seems like a good outcome, better than struggling single mothers and absent fathers.

On the other hand, many of those women will nevertheless carry those children to term. In that case the situation is worse because now the woman is raising the child without even the child support payments of the father. I think we all agree that at this point it's a worse outcome?

The question seems to be, at the population level which outcome will tend to occur, and are children, in general and on average, better or worse off? I don't know the answer but it seems more relevant to me than much of the focus of the discussion so far.
 
Actually the whole idea of paper abortions is redundant.

Vasectamies are the best option to avoid pregnancies, and these days vasectamies can be reversed with a very high success rate. They are actually slightly more comparable to an actual abortion that a woman may feel compelled to undergo once she is served a "paper abortion notice."

They could have vasectomy clinics like they have abortion clinics.

Reversable vasectomies are the most equitable option.
 
Hungry81 said:
Actually the whole idea of paper abortions is redundant.

Vasectamies are the best option to avoid pregnancies, and these days vasectamies can be reversed with a very high success rate. They are actually slightly more comparable to an actual abortion that a woman may feel compelled to undergo once she is served a "paper abortion notice."

They could have vasectomy clinics like they have abortion clinics.

Reversable vasectomies are the most equitable option.
Click to expand...

A vasectomy doesn't address the problem of what to do once a woman has already become pregnant, unless you've got a time machine as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom