Plus ca change.....pope reverts to type

[I Ratant]

Most of the abortions men do are waaaaay past the 3rd trimester...100th, in some cases!

 

[Navigator]

Most of the abortions men do are waaaaay past the 3rd trimester...100th, in some cases!

I think without the egg, strictly speaking no abortion has occurred any more than a period could be considered an abortion.

Otherwise...I have completely misunderstood your comment.

 

[Navigator]

I think men should have the right to perform an abortion too.

Don't men perform abortions too?

 

[catsmate]

Here's the full text of what Francis said actually about abortion in his State of the World speech:

Yeah pretty mild stuff, heavy on the social justice front. Not going to soothe the traddies.

To get back to the pope, I frankly think the current one is doing a good show, given the circumstances. There is a real hope that the RCC may actually move out of the medieval quagmire under this leadership. I salute that; while I hold a secular society as the goal, too much human misery is generated by an archaic church.

Hans

True. Soon they may embrace the Renaissance,then the Enlightenment.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well that shine another light on the subject...

Other than that he has good speech writers, or maybe is himself very good at shovelling BS, I'm not sure what light.

It manages to squeeze in an abortion of an unconscious, non-sentient collection of cells, that until very late in the term doesn't even have the neural connections feel pain or really have any inputs to process, along with using actual feeling and thinking children as soldiers, as slaves, and other such horrors. And in terms of structure, it's not even some accidental association, but a chiasm with the real payload in the middle, not unlike the Markan sandwiches of the fairy tale whose fan-club he leads. It's a symmetrical parade of stuff sandwiching his anti-abortion message.

It's like if I told you that the real horrors and injustices of today are war, slavery, universal healthcare, human trafficking, and murder. It just forms a nice sandwich to feed you the "universal healthcare = evil" payload, by wrapping it into stuff to help you swallow that, like you wrap a nasty tasting pill in meat to feed it to a dog.

Anyone who'd take the above hypothetical speech as "OMG, Hans is so profound and sensitive, because he cares about war, slavery and healthcare", then, offense intended, they're dumber than the pope looks.

Except he's doing it for abortion, rather than for my hypothetical example of an anti-healthcare speech. But it's the same structure.

It's akin to the Bread, Eggs, Milk, Squick trope, except by sandwiching it in the middle, it ceases to be funny, and becomes a way to pack the squick part as on par with the other things you can agree to.

The very fact that something which should be a human right is packed as yet another item in a list of evil stuff, is the problem. It's what makes it offensive and vile.

 

[fishbob]

I mean, seriously you may as well have said 'men cannot have a say in the matter', far as I can tell.

Seems fair.
Men don't carry the weight, don't face the risks of child birth, and satistically under-participate in child rearing.
Seems quite fair.

 

[Darth Rotor]

One of the best forms of contraception is a swallow.
I don't suppose the Pope will ever get up and say that ... I mean, look at their discourse against self pleasuring ... .. or even enjoying sex too much!

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

 

[HansMustermann]

Seems fair.
Men don't carry the weight, don't face the risks of child birth, and satistically under-participate in child rearing.
Seems quite fair.

Not disagreeing with that, but the simpler argument is: would anyone think person X should have a say in whether person Y gets their tonsils removed? Barring, of course, doctors in a life threatening emergency, where the patient is unconscious and unable to give consent or deny the procedure. Does person X have some moral right to tell person Y to get their tonsils removed? To tell them not to?

Or let's even say person X was involved, like, say, they gave Y a viral tumour. Herpes can do that. Does anyone think X has the right to tell Y to have it removed, or to not have it removed?

It seems to me like one wise man once said, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". Well, actually the full quote is:

This arm is my arm (and my wife’s), it is not yours. Up here I have a right to strike out with it as I please. I go over there with these gentlemen and swing my arm and exercise the natural right which you have granted; I hit one man on the nose, another under the ear, and as I go down the stairs on my head, I cry out:

“Is not this a free country?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Have not I a right to swing my arm?”

“Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”​

It seems to me like the same applies here. One can waffle about rights and the unfairness of it and all, but their rights end where a different person's nose begins. And when we're talking inside the other person's body, it seems to me like anyone else's rights have ended several inches ago.

Plus, I notice that the arguments about how unfair it is for the husband to not have the veto, what's glossed over is that women don't actually just randomly flip a coin and go get an abortion on a whim. In most cases, there'll be a lot of deliberation and talking, and a lot do go together with their husbands to the clinic.

The bigger problem is that the people who most swiftly elect themselves to tell a woman what to do with her internal organs, are those who have no real justification to do so. It's groups of strangers, or old male virgins like the Pope, who didn't even contribute any genetic material to that fetus, and won't contribute jack to raising the baby. So, WTH? What delusional sense of entitlement makes them think that it's THEIR right to make that decision, and to override whatever choice the pregnant woman wants to make?

I mean, it's not like the issue is that if the Pope got a woman pregnant, it would be at least courteous for him to be consulted about the abortion. That isn't really the issue, is it? It's that a guy who swore off pussy, thinks he's entitled to tell some complete strangers what to do with their bodies.

And it's not even a men's rights vs women's rights issue, since, as I've said before, most women do decide together with their husbands and go together to the clinic. But some douchebag with no stake in it thinks he can override them BOTH the man and the woman. Because his imaginary friend told him he's more special than both the man and the woman combined.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Anybody else want popcorn if I make some?

Sweet or salt?

 

[Navigator]

Seems fair.
Men don't carry the weight, don't face the risks of child birth, and satistically under-participate in child rearing.
Seems quite fair.

What do men do then?

If statistically they under-participate in child rearing can it be said that the world is the way it is because women have the most influence over children? Or if you prefer, in the countries where these stats are shown to be the case?
Or are 'child rearing' and 'how humans turn out' different things?

From what I have observed, the risks of childbirth are inconsequential in relation to the necessity to not only have children but to provide the mothers mother with grandchildren.

The great thing about babies/children is that they are better than dolls. And they come in two varieties, ordinarily. There are also boy babies which is an advantage as the chance to groom a future man (boy-child) in the knowledge and willing participation (service) of what women require and what they (future men) need to do to assist that process is something which must be taken advantage of asap.

What's 'love' got to do with it? Who said love had anything to do with it?
Survival is what it is about.

So yes, seems fair. I can see sense in having women primarily involved with child rearing. The unfortunate reality is that such positions of responsibility are just as easily open to abuse, and as such society pays the price, but what is society other than the result of child rearing?

Of course 'abuse' is in the eye of the beholder, and grooming boy children to serve women may in fact perhaps be nothing more than the natural order of all things human, or if not - then at least all things to do with civilized human culture.

Still, I am of the position that just because a woman can have babies should not in itself grant her the right/responsibility of ownership. Or if you prefer, just because parents can produce children should not in itself grant them the right/responsibility of ownership.

Of course, I also think that Utopian-like societies built by human beings working together for the good of one another is potentially possible.
(Certainly I did not get that idea from me mother/parents)

You may say I'm a dreamer...

 

[Navigator]

And it's not even a men's rights vs women's rights issue, since, as I've said before, most women do decide together with their husbands and go together to the clinic. But some douchebag with no stake in it thinks he can override them BOTH the man and the woman. Because his imaginary friend told him he's more special than both the man and the woman combined.

Sometimes if one is not so emotionally involved, one can acquire another perspective through observation of what can be regarded as 'the bigger picture' of which all these little and seemingly unconnected pictures go together to make up a large proportion of the bigger picture.

Who can say what a Pope (or any other such person dedicated to sexual abstinence) goes through (as a process) regarding that position?

I don't get the impression this personality regards himself as 'more special'. He does have the opportunity to use his position to assist well needed changes happening in the world, and no doubt he may come up against opposition from within the organisation he is involved with.

What I get from all this (though not this alone) is that we are a species on the verge of something which could be very good or very bad, depending largely on how WE decide to react.

Imaginary friends or not.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I get bothered by these arguments. They seem to assume all women are naturally Gifted Child Rearing Geniuses.
They're not. There are just a lot of **** mothers. And not all men are uninvolved morons who can't change a diaper.

 

[A'isha]

What do men do then?

If statistically they under-participate in child rearing can it be said that the world is the way it is because women have the most influence over children? Or if you prefer, in the countries where these stats are shown to be the case?
Or are 'child rearing' and 'how humans turn out' different things?

From what I have observed, the risks of childbirth are inconsequential in relation to the necessity to not only have children but to provide the mothers mother with grandchildren.

The great thing about babies/children is that they are better than dolls. And they come in two varieties, ordinarily. There are also boy babies which is an advantage as the chance to groom a future man (boy-child) in the knowledge and willing participation (service) of what women require and what they (future men) need to do to assist that process is something which must be taken advantage of asap.

What's 'love' got to do with it? Who said love had anything to do with it?
Survival is what it is about.

So yes, seems fair. I can see sense in having women primarily involved with child rearing. The unfortunate reality is that such positions of responsibility are just as easily open to abuse, and as such society pays the price, but what is society other than the result of child rearing?

Of course 'abuse' is in the eye of the beholder, and grooming boy children to serve women may in fact perhaps be nothing more than the natural order of all things human, or if not - then at least all things to do with civilized human culture.

Still, I am of the position that just because a woman can have babies should not in itself grant her the right/responsibility of ownership. Or if you prefer, just because parents can produce children should not in itself grant them the right/responsibility of ownership.

Of course, I also think that Utopian-like societies built by human beings working together for the good of one another is potentially possible.
(Certainly I did not get that idea from me mother/parents)

You may say I'm a dreamer...

What on Earth are you on about? Men should have a lesser say in abortion decisions because men don't have to deal with pregnancy and related issues (ie, things that happen before a child is born). Everything in your post has to do with things that happen after a child is born, and is thus entirely irrelevant to the subject of abortion.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

What on Earth are you on about? Men should have a lesser say in abortion decisions because men don't have to deal with pregnancy and related issues (ie, things that happen before a child is born). Everything in your post has to do with things that happen after a child is born, and is thus entirely irrelevant to the subject of abortion.

Say gestation outside the womb becomes an easy, accessible thing. Does that change your argument?

 

[Navigator]

I get bothered by these arguments. They seem to assume all women are naturally Gifted Child Rearing Geniuses.
They're not. There are just a lot of **** mothers. And not all men are uninvolved morons who can't change a diaper.

Yeah I tend to agree with that sentiment Monketey Ghost. No real point in using the same brush to paint with.

This must also apply to many things, such as with theists. In the end it is not really about what we believe or not.

But until this is seen to be the case - by individual - the world continues as it does for better or for worse.

I think it may be an important step in learning love and respect for individual children who are going to become adults if they survive childhood that society learns how to protect them sufficiently. Those best able to bring into the system that which compels this recognition by law, would have to be those who have experienced being loved respected and nurtured by their parents, and thus know the importance of such an environment.

Do these actually exist? Are their numbers sufficient? What obstacles are in the way which will fight tooth and nail not to have to be registered a proven educated mother/father potential and earn that licence to reproduce and that right to have the responsibility of child rearing granted them through proper and rigorous education process?

As much as I understand the horror of abortion, I can't reconcile the horror of insisting children be born into an environment which is simply not suitable for children.
The process of evolution has done this thing, but it has also provided a platform for/of consciousness and through that a sense of concern and loving-kindness which may not have been so obvious or applicable in the cave dwelling days and may even have come (in no small way) through the process of imagining sky daddies and earth mothers etc which enabled humans to leave the caves and start building infrastructure reflecting those inner concepts.

And we just happen to now be at a place where all that hard work, sacrifice , blood sweat and tears, pain, suffering, war, humiliation etc might actually be understood and justified as part of the process by which - if a species can just get over it, would make those things - even those things - forgivable.

 

[Navigator]

What on Earth are you on about? Men should have a lesser say in abortion decisions because men don't have to deal with pregnancy and related issues (ie, things that happen before a child is born). Everything in your post has to do with things that happen after a child is born, and is thus entirely irrelevant to the subject of abortion.

That would depend upon the reasons why people choose to abort.

Besides, the natural question arose which had to be addressed, in relation to abortion and the essential right of the woman to make the call.

 

[Craig B]

Say gestation outside the womb becomes an easy, accessible thing. Does that change your argument?

It would change not merely arguments, but society. Brave New World might come to pass.