Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Oh and to throw one more hat into the ring...while this may be one person I DO know someone who enjoyed being pregnant as well.

Ron Paul enjoyed being pregnant????

Slartibartfast wrote: timothy leary wrote: Never seen so many experts on what a woman feels. I have felt up some women in my life and I think that qualifies me as an expert.

I don't cause harm to any animals. Even spiders nowadays. I try to respect lives.

Now someone will mention that I eat meat so I harm animals indirectly.

Then we can say we all harm people in China when we buy electronics...

Ok I know I better shut up...

timothy leary wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: timothy leary wrote: Never seen so many experts on what a woman feels. I have felt up some women in my life and I think that qualifies me as an expert. There is about 50 funny comebacks to your answer......pick one

Number 42.

And hey T, just because you are a doody head you don't need to take it personal.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 31 2012 at 18:21

Gamemako wrote: Or a mockery of the notion of possession in the context of Rob's every-cell-has-full-human-rights view.

This is not at all what I said nor what I adhere to.  Human sperm + human egg = human being.

Epignosis wrote: Gamemako wrote: Or a mockery of the notion of possession in the context of Rob's every-cell-has-full-human-rights view. This is not at all what I said nor what I adhere to.  Human sperm + human egg = human being.

Human sperm + human egg = zygote.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 31 2012 at 18:55

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I insulted you?

Not you. Nevermind, it's not worth discussing. Sleeping dogs, sleeping dogs.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: If the abstract is to be trusted I don't see this report actually being relevant to our discussion.

According to the book though which I found the study, they did ask whether participants enjoyed being pregnant, and it includes anecdotes from the study. Whether that particular data was actually included in the study, I cannot say.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You said no then rephrased what I said?

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I cannot say what part of a woman's upbringing or genetics would lead her to love or loathe pregnancy. Again, I used the example of something that is choice so it would be easier to swallow. Clearly, I mishandled that one pretty badly. Regardless, some event or combination of events lead to a person's attitude towards pregnancy, and if that is reflected in tangible demographics, then it may help explain the divide.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Everything in that sentence suggest that the woman doesn't exist or is exceedingly rare.

Yes, that was the intent. That was the occasion where I used no qualifier at all (i.e. the time I did speak in absolutes). Come to think of it, I also said that religion has no place in law, but included a long bit about why I think there really aren't exceptions to the rule.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I believe you're not understanding her. It's an effect of not being able to fully view an experience while going through it. Much like during every class I've ever taken I've felt as though I had learned nothing, but after the conclusion the great multitude of information acquired became apparent. At least that was my interpretation of the woman.

The problem is that she's describing the same experience in two ways: once as negative and once as positive. Estimation of your knowledge is one thing, but she is simply describing an experience. Does she hate the experience but like having gone through it? That is the notion that reminded me of Aronson's study. I don't know. Then again, those sorts of effects are not usually conscious.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Yet also showing a desire to go through the experience. If the hatred of pregnancy was as prevalent as you suggest, it's unlikely that people would strive to go through it. Most people are ignorant of root canals, but they are sufficiently conditioned by society to fear it.

That is possible, but root canals do not have the positive connotations in society that childbearing does. This notion that being a mother is somehow transcendent is pervasive in our culture, but not necessarily true in any sense.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Did I have to be specific? The argument arose from my rejection of an absolute statement regarding inequality of sexes because of the need to carry a child to term. Even one woman would really disprove that notion. In any case, if the true number is less 25% I would be shocked.

Fair enough.

Impregnated woman = just a vessel for the fetus?

Negoba claimed that the idea that women shouldn't suffer disproportionately was hedonism. He further suggested that reducing the discomfort for women would only serve to encourage casual sex and remove responsibility. The only alternative, then, is that all suffer equally. Well, or that women suffer disproportionately, but he also seemed to discount that in a previous post. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be made is that he wants the lives of men to suck equally for nine months. I further noted that this sort of "equality" is terribly reminiscent of communism.