The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[KFunk]

2.) Due to the brain differences between males and females, males have enhanced spacial recognition and logic processes. This is most likely an evolutionary holdover from where fast thinking, well aiming hunters brought the meat home and got to reproduce.
As society evolved men completely dominated every intelectual field, part of this was because women were not in charge and uneducated, i admit... but there had to be a reason they werent in charge? i mean they controlled the sex right? surely they could have taken power somehow.

...

I would put these 10 people among the elite who have vastly contributed to human knowledge. Notice something? they are all men. Also who are the richest people in the world? all men.

Women perform stronger when it comes to certain verbal skills. In any case the differences are pretty negligible and there's nothing stopping a woman from being a great mathematician (except perhaps society) or a man from being a great writer.

Fewer women have 'contributed to human knowledge' largely because male dominant societies have prevented them from doing so. How do you expect a woman to contribute to rigorous intellectual/scientific areas when men won't even admit her to university? Similarly, how will she have an impact if she isn't allowed into politics? Furthermore, self-determination is that much more difficult when all the men in your family have control over the family income - especially when noone will pay a woman a decent wage. The ways in which women have been pushed into a role as a 'second sex' are numerous. Fortunately, a great deal has improved in the recent years but if you want to know why they didn't make significant contributions in the past then consider the above (there is also the issue of men overlooking their contributions).


(Also - Edward Witten?? It's debatable whether M-theory even counts as knowledge)

 

[Generator]

I was hoping you wouldnt bring this up because i really dont like to argue about this, but the facts do indeed speak for themselves.
1.) Women are physically weaker than men in almost every way. Historically, when thinking wasnt as important as hard physical labour such as tilling the land, this made men far more valuable to the ecconomy than women.

2.) Due to the brain differences between males and females, males have enhanced spacial recognition and logic processes. This is most likely an evolutionary holdover from where fast thinking, well aiming hunters brought the meat home and got to reproduce.
As society evolved men completely dominated every intelectual field, part of this was because women were not in charge and uneducated, i admit... but there had to be a reason they werent in charge? i mean they controlled the sex right? surely they could have taken power somehow.

A fantastic post, but most of all I enjoyed the following paragraph -

i admit... but there had to be a reason they werent in charge? i mean they controlled the sex right? surely they could have taken power somehow.

The above paragraph stands in stark contrast to those that preceded it - that is, you go from explaining the way in which men dominated women to suggesting that, somehow, women were free to act as individual and empowered sexual agents if they were so willing (which they weren't, according to your 'interpretation').

To be quite blunt, Serius, your point is pathetic and I really don't know why it is that you seem to hate women with such a passion.

 

[Serius]

I dont hate women, i love them. They excel in dealing with emotions and communication, i dont know wether this is because of society and how we are told "men dont cry" but if i feel like dealing with emotions or just a talk i will search out a female friend.

Contrary to my post, i feel strongly about entraping people in gender roles. Like Kfunk said, men can do things like write well or be a nurse if he wants to, and women can do whatever the hell they want really, iam not going to stop them. Become the next Einstein and prove to me how women can lick quantum physics.

Gen, the paragraph you quoted was meant in jest. The original human societies were matriarchs that were usurped by men in power[ iam blaming religion here] Athenian women used to laugh about this and during particular religious festivals [ iam going to say elusian mysteries but i think it was something else] the women would withhold sex... also it was done during certain wars in protest.


I shouldnt have opened by mouth but i really dislike the elephant in the room. This reminds me of an arguement i had about blacks being more suseptable to certain diseases than whites.
Women are weaker, and they have biological and social hurdles to overcome if they wish to suceed in the academic world. Business is even harder because of the glass ceiling put in place by men who want to keep their business like a dynasty.

 

[HotShot]

1. What is it that makes someone a human (being/person etc.)? i.e. what are the defining qualities of personhood?

2. Why should people have a right to life, in particular why should an organism that is a human have a right to life? (proper argument, please)

3. (in connection with 2.) What is it that an individual looses in being killed? (i.e. what is it that they loose that makes it wrong to kill them).

1. A human is a homosapien. Simple.
2. Its not really the right to life, but u dont have the right to take away life. U cant kill in other words. Tats a stupid question, its like asking why should u have the right to piss? - because u have to i suppose.

3. Just because u lose nothing, doesnt mean its right to kill. Your talking in a economic sense. ITs not about losing, its about what u can gain? the possibility and oppurtinity that arises. noone talks about things that they would loose, its all about gain.

for eg, u do not sack employees because u are losing profit, u sack them to gain profit. or u dont remove research scientists from the cure of cancer because they are losing resources, but u move them because u can gain resources elsewhere. if u lose nothing and thats the ultimate reason for killin, then why bother? u losing nothin anyway so why bother putting the extra effort to kill somethin.

come up with some sensible questions.

 

[Xayma]

Steven Hawking
Edward Witten
Thomas Edison
Einstein
Newton
Plato
Thucydides
Socrates
Aristotle
Gregor Mendel

I would put these 10 people among the elite who have vastly contributed to human knowledge. Notice something? they are all men. Also who are the richest people in the world? all men.

You pick ten people without justification. I know very little of Thucydides and would consider people such as Curie, Myer inclusion in that list. Also nearly all of them come from a time period where women lacked the education to be able to make huge contributions to science or philosophy. Also that list is quite subjective, Witten published a theory which is based purely on mathematics and shows no testability, yet Euler, one who advanced the cause of mathematics by huge amounts is not encluded.

 

[HotShot]

You pick ten people without justification. I know very little of Thucydides and would consider people such as Curie, Myer inclusion in that list. Also nearly all of them come from a time period where women lacked the education to be able to make huge contributions to science or philosophy. Also that list is quite subjective, Witten published a theory which is based purely on mathematics and shows no testability, yet Euler, one who advanced the cause of mathematics by huge amounts is not encluded.

well that was his whole point, why werent women allowed to be educated? he suggested they were better at other things at the time. u dont need to look far to find ten influential males, where as u need to dig deep ten influential women. women definetly had oppurtinies.

i mean u have hitler, trotsky, marx, in a more recent time period, only need to look at recent nobel prize winners: in all areas.. like Seamus Heaney..

 

[Xayma]

well that was his whole point, why werent women allowed to be educated? he suggested they were better at other things at the time. u dont need to look far to find ten influential males, where as u need to dig deep ten influential women. women definetly had oppurtinies.

i mean u have hitler, trotsky, marx, in a more recent time period, only need to look at recent nobel prize winners: in all areas.. like Seamus Heaney..

Women did not necessairly have the same opportunities. A large number of these positions occured after university level exams. If the parents, or government, denied females the ability to go to school then it doesn't matter how smart they are or if they think of things that are profound or help them along.

Also the nobel prizes predominanetly feature sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine as opposed to Literature and Peace) which, due to the disproportionate amount of males in the sciences this is relatively obvious. Also the societal context of women and the influence they can hence use needs to be taken into account, would countries which have strict societal influences promote females to the highest positions where they can spread their knowledge?

 

[The Brucemaster]

Ladies and Gentleman the fact still remains that noone has actually been able to provide solid evidence for women's inferiority, especially not in modernity.

Bschoc don't give me these bullshit general statements about how every single field of human endeavour has been founded and is dominated by males you need some PROOF.
In any event if we look at modern history we find that there are a number of women who have had a substantial influence on/role in society.

- Margaret Thatcher
- Queen Elizabeth 1 and II
- Germaine Greer (as much as it pains me to say it)
- Fiona Wood

These are just a few examples.

Well historically speaking the Australian legal system has always taken after the US on things like capital punishment, abortion, affirmative action etc. That said what does it matter in which countries these experts draw their conclusions? Do we drive cars even though they were invented in Germany? Or not eat pizza becuase its Italian? Or only listen to the expertise of local academia? NOPE ..

Interesting statement, can't say I agree with it though. Historically speaking our legal system has in fact taken after the British legal system, borrowing heavily from its common law system.
The use of commodities from foreign countries is in now way comparable to the adoption of legal principles from foreign countries because one arises out of necessity whereas the other arises out of choice.

Actually I fear it is you who doesn't understand the legal ramifications of the Bill bshoc, for as is clearly stated the law DOES NOT APPLY TO ABORTION. Therefore your statement that the Bill indicates that abortion is murder is entirely fallacious.
Furthermore in this regard, I am well aware of what is defined as an unborn child, I do not need it repeated to me. What I would like, however, is for you to show the relevance that this Bill has to Australia, given the above.

 

[bshoc]

Ladies and Gentleman the fact still remains that noone has actually been able to provide solid evidence for women's inferiority, especially not in modernity.

Bschoc don't give me these bullshit general statements about how every single field of human endeavour has been founded and is dominated by males you need some PROOF.
In any event if we look at modern history we find that there are a number of women who have had a substantial influence on/role in society.

- Margaret Thatcher
- Queen Elizabeth 1 and II
- Germaine Greer (as much as it pains me to say it)
- Fiona Wood

These are just a few examples.

No those are pretty much all the examples, hehe. Four relative to what? Millions over time.

Those women just studied or did what was invented by men, Thatcher is an ass who started the most useless war in over a long time, Greer .. dont get me started on Greer, and the Queen, oh yes lets not forget the monarch that willingly allowed the entire power of the crown to be raped away.

Interesting statement, can't say I agree with it though. Historically speaking our legal system has in fact taken after the British legal system, borrowing heavily from its common law system.
The use of commodities from foreign countries is in now way comparable to the adoption of legal principles from foreign countries because one arises out of necessity whereas the other arises out of choice.

Our original system was inherited from the mother country correct, but in the past 60 or 70 years we have taken after the United States more than anything (infact so has the UK). Actually its been quite a legal circular flow.

Actually I fear it is you who doesn't understand the legal ramifications of the Bill bshoc, for as is clearly stated the law DOES NOT APPLY TO ABORTION. Therefore your statement that the Bill indicates that abortion is murder is entirely fallacious.

I fear that you're not understanding what I'm saying, what the bill says about abortion is irrelevant, and since you dont quote or put my comments into context its no wonder you're such an ignorant - . What matters in the context of this debate is what the council ruled on as being a human and viable being - the rest is irrelevant - dont start things with me about points I never brought up.

 

[HotShot]

Women did not necessairly have the same opportunities. A large number of these positions occured after university level exams. If the parents, or government, denied females the ability to go to school then it doesn't matter how smart they are or if they think of things that are profound or help them along.

Also the nobel prizes predominanetly feature sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine as opposed to Literature and Peace) which, due to the disproportionate amount of males in the sciences this is relatively obvious. Also the societal context of women and the influence they can hence use needs to be taken into account, would countries which have strict societal influences promote females to the highest positions where they can spread their knowledge?

everyone has the same oppurtinities, its up to the them to create those oppurtinities. Oppurtinities are not always given, they need to be created. just think of the people like copernicus those early scientists that were oppressed byt he church, they still managed to do what they wanted and they created their own oppurtinities. Dont tell me women werent given oppurtinties - they had plenty and they could have also created a lot.

just imagine if women had taken those oppurtinities and created more, the world would be a much better place now. IT was men who in the end gave the oppurtinity and helped women otherwise till now.. women would have been the same.

 

[Serius]

some random prime minister? please in the rest of the world there are about 2 other female political leaders, making the total of male political leaders somewhere around 300. Lets not forget emperor bush leader of the world either.

Royalty? you realise kings get precedence over queens right? and i can name a shitload more influentual kings than you can [ thankyou, Rome: total war]

A feminist? now shes pretty smart but iam sure she could have done something more with her life

Some random plastic surgeon in a male dominated field? wow i almost look up to her as much as i do camren from house [who has 3 male co-workers... 3:1 go figure the odds]

males built physics up from when people had trouble calcuating how far their cannon would shoot. Darwin revolutionalised biology. Robert Boyle did the same for chemistry. You realise space flight was accomplished solely by men right?
Thucydides was the father of history
Look i hate this argument because it isnt fair, but 50 years of liberation is not going to make up for the contributions males have made since the begining of time.

the point of that law that bshoc brought up was that if its murder to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach then its murder to abort that same baby. You cant kill someone one way and say its wrong/murder and then kill them in another way and say its ok/ not murder.
yes i know i know, the American legal system tries to do it all the time with capital punishment[ which iam strongly against for the record] but for some reason they are still stuck in the old testement..an eye for an eye and all that rubish.

 

[dieburndie]

some random prime minister? please in the rest of the world there are about 2 other female political leaders, making the total of male political leaders somewhere around 300. Lets not forget emperor bush leader of the world either.

Royalty? you realise kings get precedence over queens right? and i can name a shitload more influentual kings than you can [ thankyou, Rome: total war]

A feminist? now shes pretty smart but iam sure she could have done something more with her life

Some random plastic surgeon in a male dominated field? wow i almost look up to her as much as i do camren from house [who has 3 male co-workers... 3:1 go figure the odds]

males built physics up from when people had trouble calcuating how far their cannon would shoot. Darwin revolutionalised biology. Robert Boyle did the same for chemistry. You realise space flight was accomplished solely by men right?
Thucydides was the father of history
Look i hate this argument because it isnt fair, but 50 years of liberation is not going to make up for the contributions males have made since the begining of time.

You cannot be Serius! *Slices egg with tennis racquet*

Uh, Thatcher and Wood are hardly "random". I mean Thatcher at least represents that woman prime ministers, like men, can represent satan in a political setting. I just think the fact that woman are not as frequently achieving positions of power reflects that we still have a long way to go in order to establish adequate opportunities for many to do so.

 

[KFunk]

come up with some sensible questions.

Obviously you missed the point. You can approach the 'right to life' in both ways, why someone has the right not to have their life taken away or why someone shouldn't kill. It's an important question and you haven't provided an argument for or against it. Another approach to get at the same thing:

A lot of people don't care about killing mosquitos/bacteria/rabbits etc. They are not afforded the right to life that humans are. What is it about humans that causes us to elevate them above other living organisms and give them a superior right?

 

[*Minka*]

IT may been in her body, but it is the father's baby just as its the mother's baby. so they both have equal rights to it. its not physically possible (i hope not) to have the baby in the father.

an abortion should be the last resort rather than the first. having an abortion is a quick solution to the problem, its the easy way out. its not the dealing with consequenes, its basically putting it aside. wats to say if she pregnant again - another abortion? where does it end?

Of course you don't want men to be pregnant - best to let women deal with that problem hey? And look, I do appreciate that there is a man involved, but seeing as the woman is the one who is pregnant and has that fetus in her body, there really isn't a way the man can have equal stake in the matter until it is born. I know it sucks, but there is no perfect solution to the issue and the choice really must be the womens.

And I don't believe it is the fetus' body until it is born, or at least in very advancted states of pregnany by which point, the baby is WANTED anyway. As I have explicity said before, the vast majority of abotions are very EARLY term - as soon as the woman finds out.

I agree to an extent about abortion being the last resort - contraception should always be used to prevent pregnancy as much as possible, not having with with all 'eh, I don't need the pill or condoms because I can get an abortion'. There should be a level of responsbility with birth control taken first. An an ideal world, there would be no abortions because there would be no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. However, that is not the case and so unplanned pregnancies need to have choices surrounding the dealing with of them.

 

[HotShot]

Obviously you missed the point. You can approach the 'right to life' in both ways, why someone has the right not to have their life taken away or why someone shouldn't kill. It's an important question and you haven't provided an argument for or against it. Another approach to get at the same thing:

A lot of people don't care about killing mosquitos/bacteria/rabbits etc. They are not afforded the right to life that humans are. What is it about humans that causes us to elevate them above other living organisms and give them a superior right?

no.. its not like that, there is only one way. there is no right to life so to speak - the element of control is not there, but u can control the elimination of life thru unnatural means.

its natural to live and kill. animals kill other animals does not thatmean they an notion of status? The righ to kill is only limited by the laws we have created.

The right to life is beyond that, never really comes into the equation.

but seeing as the woman is the one who is pregnant and has that fetus in her body, there really isn't a way the man can have equal stake in the matter until it is born

no, men do have equal rights to the baby. Personally they dont give a shit where it is, but it is their's. Suppose my watch is in someone elses stomach - the watch is still mine and it doesnt become their or their right.

Ur stomach is ur rite, the baby is not has equal rites with the father.

Uh, Thatcher and Wood are hardly "random"

I think they were, there was no need for them. Indira Ghandi would have been a better example, or Pepsico CEO Indra nooyi or somethin.
any pom doesnt deserved to be recognised.

 

[HotShot]

I agree to an extent about abortion being the last resort - contraception should always be used to prevent pregnancy as much as possible, not having with with all 'eh, I don't need the pill or condoms because I can get an abortion'. There should be a level of responsbility with birth control taken first. An an ideal world, there would be no abortions because there would be no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. However, that is not the case and so unplanned pregnancies need to have choices surrounding the dealing with of them.

Ha ha u got be kiddin me.. u think that unplanned pregnancy are the only accidents in this whole world?

there are so many accidents, but u dont after car crash, one of the drivers killin himself to ease the pain of his wounds and then going to court, because he doesnt take the easy option. he goes through the courts and seeks counselling and he tries everything until he decides to take his life.

Basically i am saying if your going to have sex, then of course there will be chance of getting pregnant, so there is no such thing as unplanned pregancy. if there is chance and u have sex then its not unplanned is it?

many would say they are not ready, then get yourself ready, its not hard especially in Australia to bring up a baby.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Those women just studied or did what was invented by men, Thatcher is an ass who started the most useless war in over a long time, Greer .. dont get me started on Greer, and the Queen, oh yes lets not forget the monarch that willingly allowed the entire power of the crown to be raped away.

Well I assume you're referring to the Falklands War and most would agree that the protection of one's territory is not entirely useless.
I would also like to point out that Thatcher is responsible for the re-establishment of negotiations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, was one of the first to strongly promote free trade and privatisation and was also the longest serving British Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool (1812 - 1827).
Furthermore, the Queen has made no legislative change to the power of the Monarch, she simply does not exercise it unless absolutely necessary.

While we're on the subject, Serius, Fiona Wood is hardly "some random plastic surgeon", she is a pioneer in her field.

I fear that you're not understanding what I'm saying, what the bill says about abortion is irrelevant, and since you dont quote or put my comments into context its no wonder you're such an ignorant - . What matters in the context of this debate is what the council ruled on as being a human and viable being - the rest is irrelevant - dont start things with me about points I never brought up.

Actually what the Bill says about abortion is entirely relevant. The Bill EXPLICITLY STATES that the definition is not relevant to abortion. Also, THE BILL ITSELF IS NOT RELEVANT TO ABORTION.
The Council's ruling on the humanity of a foetus is therefore mostly irrelevant because the purpose with which they were making that ruling was not related to abortion.

 

[KFunk]

no.. its not like that, there is only one way. there is no right to life so to speak - the element of control is not there, but u can control the elimination of life thru unnatural means.

its natural to live and kill. animals kill other animals does not thatmean they an notion of status? The righ to kill is only limited by the laws we have created.

The right to life is beyond that, never really comes into the equation.

You have me a little confused here. A few questions:

- What does this sentence mean?: "animals kill other animals does not thatmean they an notion of status?"

- By laws do you mean those that are put in place to govern a country? If so, don't you think they need some form of justification and if not what laws are you talking about?

- You say that there is no right to life and at the same time that "it is beyond that". What do you mean?

 

[HotShot]

You have me a little confused here. A few questions:

- What does this sentence mean?: "animals kill other animals does not thatmean they an notion of status?"

- By laws do you mean those that are put in place to govern a country? If so, don't you think they need some form of justification and if not what laws are you talking about?

- You say that there is no right to life and at the same time that "it is beyond that". What do you mean?

"animals kill other animals does that mean they have a notion of status?" - well they do?

u claim, since humans kill other animals you feel as we are inferior or sometin. my point is so what. its natural.

how would you describe the right of life? its a natural process, there are no rights there.

I said the right to kill is only limited by laws that have been created. Wehterh those laws are used to govern a country or household or community is irrevelent. There are something that you can control, like if you want to kill someone u can do so (u have the ability to do so).

but when it to come life, can you create life exactly how you want it?there is no element of control. the right to life cannot be judged by anyone.

 

[KFunk]

"
u claim, since humans kill other animals you feel as we are inferior or sometin. my point is so what. its natural.

I never said we were inferior to animals because we kill them. I was pointing out that we take issue when it comes to killing humans and turn a blind eye when animals die. I was wanting to know why some individuals are fine with killing animals but are totally against killing people (why do humans get different rights to living animals?).

I said the right to kill is only limited by laws that have been created. Wehterh those laws are used to govern a country or household or community is irrevelent. There are something that you can control, like if you want to kill someone u can do so (u have the ability to do so).

When I talk about rights I mean the universal ethical kind which are only ever limited in a functional sense, not in what they entail or prescribe. (once again, I don't understand the grammar of your last sentence).

how would you describe the right of life? its a natural process, there are no rights there.

That we have a right not to be killed essentially (similar to the right of freedom where it is more commonly thought of as a 'freedom from external forces' rather than a 'freedom to act how you please'). And yes, this then places restrictions on others, making it wrong for them to kill those who have a right to life.

but when it to come life, can you create life exactly how you want it?there is no element of control. the right to life cannot be judged by anyone.

It's not about directing or shaping your life. It's about a right to 'exist', not a right to 'exist in whatever manner you please'. At the most fundamental level we have our existence, without which we have nothing. A right to life is a right to the continuation of one's existence.