• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

fucking fucking fuck.. the abortion issue of late

it's either you want a child or you don't, there is no middle-ground here as far as I'm concerned... :\
 
BREAKaBEAT said:
Yes, and some would argue that the function of love is what keeps the child alive.
Click to expand...

those that would argue that might be more than a tad insane me thinks...... if a newborn baby is exclusively dependant on its mother to survive once born, how do u explain babies born to women in prison, or any baby that is taken from its mother as soon as its born? the babies are taken from their mother straight away and put up for adoption..... they manage to survive somehow..... (brain, heart and lung activity might be more responsible for survival than a mothers love imo, but hey, thats just me :/ i tend to believe in some of those crazy scientific theories that are floating around these days)

what about all the mums who dont love their child? do their kids suddenly shrivel up and die without this love?

nope....
 
eze451 said:
those that would argue that might be more than a tad insane me thinks...... if a newborn baby is exclusively dependant on its mother to survive once born, how do u explain babies born to women in prison, or any baby that is taken from its mother as soon as its born? the babies are taken from their mother straight away and put up for adoption..... they manage to survive somehow..... (brain, heart and lung activity might be more responsible for survival than a mothers love imo, but hey, thats just me :/ i tend to believe in some of those crazy scientific theories that are floating around these days)

what about all the mums who dont love their child? do their kids suddenly shrivel up and die without this love?

nope....
Click to expand...

I think the difference here is the fact that its taken away from its mother. It's probably put in foster care or something along that lines. In this case, it is totally excluded from any form of emotion from its mother.

In another case, whereby the kid stays with the parents who did not want them in the first place and ends up resenting its existence.. the kid ends up seeing/feeling any form of distaste and hatred towards it, this will most likely in someways affect them psychologically and they way they live their life in the future.
 
eze451 said:
those that would argue that might be more than a tad insane me thinks...... if a newborn baby is exclusively dependant on its mother to survive once born, how do u explain babies born to women in prison, or any baby that is taken from its mother as soon as its born? the babies are taken from their mother straight away and put up for adoption..... they manage to survive somehow..... (brain, heart and lung activity might be more responsible for survival than a mothers love imo, but hey, thats just me :/ i tend to believe in some of those crazy scientific theories that are floating around these days)

what about all the mums who dont love their child? do their kids suddenly shrivel up and die without this love?

nope....
Click to expand...

Yes, if the baby is not touched it does shrivel up and die - this was seen in the 1930 - 60's in orphanages all over Australia.

The bond of love between mother and child is what keeps the mother motivated to look after and care for the child, if the mother doesnt feel that love, and there is no one else around to look after the baby, the baby will die.

I doubt very much that evoltuionary psychologist are insane. Or maybe just a little ;)

And Mr black and White, err eze451, yes the babys vital organ functions keep it alive for the most part, but if you think beyond that, a baby needs to eat and to be cleaned and to have shelter. Without those things THE BABY WILL DIE. Only the caregiver can provide those things - think FOOD. So essentially love does keep the baby alive. This is also also a scientific theory and not just some bullshit that I made up. Maybe that will help you to process it better ?

And re: the babys put up for adoption. I dont kow how to quite articulate what seems to be very simple logic. Nothing is black and white. The mothers love for its child is necessary for it to live, in not as a means to an end, but as in the function that it facilitates. So the function of the bond is to facilitate the mothers obligation to feed her child. So if someone else is conducting basic survival necessities for the baby, then it doesnt matter any more what the function is because the baby is recieving what it needs.

Everything that has been said in this post is based on scientific research. If you like I am more than happy to post links to journal articles that support what I am saying. Perhaps I should refrence my posts from now on :p
 
Last edited:
if you put a baby up for adoption and you (the mother) no longer have contact with it, the baby is still going to function regardless of whether or not it's mum sticks around.
 
How sad some of these comments are.

Firstly, women don't get pregnant on their own. I think its time men take 50% of responsibility for birth control (as controversial as it sounds). If both parties take responsibility, then at those times one of those parties might make a mistake (and yes, it happens to all of us) then the other person will have enough sense to use protection. This is common sense. In my experience, I've not had a boyfriend thus far who has initiated birth control or wanted to take even the slightest responsiblity for it. It has always been up to me - to pay for it, use it, or instigate it (in the case of condoms). Since I can't take the pill (the reasons are not shallow either - I have a rather nasty family history of breast cancer in the age group of 30), I have a fight on my hands every time I ask a guy to use a condom.

This is all about women being condemned and judged by middle-aged men in parliament (and quite a few other people, reading some of these comments). When a man has sex with a woman, presumably he also knows the possible consequences of those actions. In any case, regardless of what people's opinions are, men are financially and legally responsible for their children, regardless of choice, so men should be proactive for their own sakes.

This argument is so contradictory - on the one hand, people are saying women are responsible for birth control; its your body, not my problem blah blah blah. On the other hand though (wooo!) when it comes to us making a choice as to whether we want a child or not, suddenly its not our body anymore.

I hate that women have to make this choice. I wish they didn't have to. But the reality is, that for women to have the choice, a minority of people are going to abuse it.

p.s. How dare a man tell women they shouldn't use shallow reasons to not go on the pill. News flash - women do NOT have to take the pill, for whatever goddamn reason they like. The pill is not the be-all and end-all that everyone seems to think it is, it is medication with risks and side effects that doesn't suit everybody. Jesus. Wear a damn condom.
 
Ok, dont take the pill, get pregnant then get someone to suck the child from out of you. How often do you have sex ? Weekly ?

Excellent ! Go and get an abortion everweek sunflower and then come and talk to me about your physical and mental health.
 
^ er SORRY? Jeeesus. You're a really weird person.

I was trying to make the point that both people should be responsible - why is that such a bizarre concept? It would at least decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies so both men and women wouldn't be in an emotional, difficult situation they have no control over.

Of course, I have no idea what you are on about so ... yeah.
 
Sorry, online I can get realy aggressive for no real reason.

Sorry.

I thought you were saying that women shouldnt be forced into taking the pill. Basically I was making the point that if you dont you are going to get pregnant and you shouldnt just fall back onto abortion because the pill makes you feel sick or whatever...

Oh.. and weird ? Man you should ask my friends !

Oh wait. I dont have any ! :\
 
Fair enough. Communication break down I guess.

Agreed by the way. No-one should use abortion as birth control. I really don't think too many women do though.

Weird is ok too. What's normal! Ok I'm going now.
 
*sunflower* said:
Fair enough. Communication break down I guess.

Agreed by the way. No-one should use abortion as birth control. I really don't think too many women do though.

Weird is ok too. What's normal! Ok I'm going now.
Click to expand...


Cool.

But it wasnt a communication breakdown, it was me being a dick as usual :p

Anyway, I agree also !
 
I've always been a fan of 'prevention' being better than 'cure'. Still, I don't think that a 'cure' should be eliminated altogether just because the 'prevention' is there. There are always going to be accidents, and there are always going to be naive people, and there are always going to be willful idiots. I wish to god that wasn't so, and that everyone took their birth control religiously or abstained from sex... but that's going to be very hard to accomplish.

I have no illusions as to my capacity to parent at this stage, and while I take my birth control religiously, I'm starting up a little nest egg that I hope I never have to use. If the rights of the potential child is paramount, I would rather them not have to suffer through having me as a parent, or going through strings and strings of foster homes not being wanted anywhere. If my rights are paramount, I would rather not be denied a job because of my swollen belly or denied the life I am planning because of this object that dropped from my crotch.

Abortion is NOT the first line of defence. It is, and should be, the backup plan. And I will defend my right to it, as I will defend my right not to be the destitute, barefoot wife in the kitchen cooking a pie.
 
no shit the baby needs clothing food and shelter.... but that isnt love, thats clothing food and shelter... do u honestly believe that all mothers who provide clothing food and shelter give their babies love?

if so, u are sadly mistaken.... i thought u used to live where i live now.... it must have been a VERY different place to what it is now.... half of my friends mothers raised them in the sense that they allowed them to live at home, buy them clothes and let them eat food from the house, but they also let them start using drugs at whatever age they could find them, let them roam the streets at night etc..... were they loving parents as well?

ALOT of mothers feed and clothe their kids so they dont go to jail for neglect.... not because they love their child, why do u think the world is in the state it is in now?

im not the one who is seeing things in black and white, that would be u, by applying a stupid blanket statement like "all mothers who feed and clothe their babies love them" when that is clearly not true

it must be nice to live in the perfect world u have created for yourself
 
eze451 said:


it must be nice to live in the perfect world u have created for yourself
Click to expand...

edited to keep discussion on topic.
 
Last edited:
if u had any semblance of intelligence u would respond to what i said rather than going off at me :\....

if your childhood has been so bad, u should know that some mothers shelter, feed etc their kids because they feel they have to, rather than out of love....

and for the record, i said it would be nice to live in the perfect world u have created for yourself, as in it must be nice to live where all mothers love their kids, as thats what u were saying.... as in present tense.... where u live now

i dont remember mentioning anything about your childhood, settle down and respond to the issues at hand, rather than trying to invoke sympathy without responding to what i actually said
 
Okay let's get this discussion back on track and quit with the personal insults.

A lot of you are arguing the same argument in different languages. Please chill.

/senior mod hat off/
 
This latest issue regarding abortion is a joke. I don't have anything new to add to the conversation at hand, everything in my mind has been covered - ie. I'm male, so I don't think it is my right to be taking stance in the public arena but as far as my opinions go - Pro-Abortion.

And kind of off topic but completely related here's a pro-feminism essay by the boys from Propagandhi. Makes a good read...

UPPITY WIMMIN UNITE!

Most of us meet the concept of feminism in very personal places, which may be why so many of us initially act so strongly against it. Yeah. It requires us to examine those forces and change. Change can be hard. Hell, change can be fucking terrifying- especially when it means examining the foundation of our culture and finding that it's rotten, built on shifting sands of fear and hatred Every form of media is enlisted to keep us convinced that women should remain opressed and that "they like it that way". The ideas planted in the deepest parts of our person by television, advertising and pornography all tell us that hatred is acceptable. Entire lives and eras and systems of thought have been dedicated to convince us that it is. IT'S NOT. Duh.
Feminism is located at crossroads of all human prejudice. It is especially concerned with issues of class. We live in a society that requires poverty because desperate, exploitable labour-pools mean more profits for capitalism's asshole elites. Poverty's first target is women: women who make up the majority of sweat-shop labour around the world, women who must feed their children, women who have little or no control over their reproductive lives. So until there's economic justice, there won't be gender justice. Affirmative action in the workplace is important, but real justice will never be gained solely by women becoming a part of the corporate elite. As the great feminist poet, Audre Lorde, said, "the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house." FEMINISM IS IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST. Go look at your record collection. Your television. Your bookshelf. If you're like me, chances are that between 75 and 100 percent of the artistic expression you consume is made by white, heterosexual, middle to upper-class males. Maybe we should be asking ourselves: AREN'T WE BEING CHEATED?? White heterosexual middle-class males make up a miniscule portion of the people on this planet! Think of all the emotions and thoughts we're missing! The incredible variety of voices that are lost due to our society's sexism!
Feminism's primary concern is social justice, and wrapped up in that concern is the potential of every individual to be more complete, more informed and, well... happy! Knowledge- cliched but true- is our greatest weapon (besides Jord's ass). Why do you think that we aren't encouraged to explore and experience dissenting perspectives in our schools? Knowledge is dangerous to the status quo, which is why the forces in power endeavour to control what we read and see, and therefore, what we think! Knowledge has got to include self-knowledge, because an understanding of the sexist shit that has been buried deep within us the crucial first step we've got to take towards justice between genders. We've gotta try to understand ourselves well enough to have the courage and self-confidence to confront the blatant and subtle forms of sexism that we experience everyday. We have to be able to look into the eyes of that asshead who just told a misogynist joke and say, "look, tough-guy, I know you're afraid, but what you're scared of is inside of you. You don't have to be afraid anymore.". You have the power to make that choice.
 
^ Cmon do we really need stupid comments like that?

Read up a bit and open your mind so your posts might actually mean something.

Btw, what religeon do you belong to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top