The Great Debate Thread - ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!

[Pneumonica]

I'm in law school right now, so I'm sensitive to the fact that the legal and the moral issues are extremely different.

From a legal standpoint, it should first be noted that you do not have all the sticks in the property bundle when it comes to your body. You do "own" your body in the sense that you have a life estate in it, but your property right lapses after you die (you can't bequeath your body to your children, for instance). You aren't able to sell your organs or tissues (unless the law specifically permits this for some purpose). So, for a discussion of the legality of the issue, discard all notions of "owning your own body", because outside of certain elements of the concept of "ownership", you don't.

However, there is a little issue that doesn't get discussed much in the legal arena, and that's the Thirteenth Amendment, the one that says that no person shall be made a slave except as a form of criminal punishment by the government. A mother cannot be forced to be a mother. While this might not strike you as slavery, consider the fact that the mother is a living life support unit for the undeveloped and unborn child. While it might not be "slavery" in the classical sense, it is "involuntary servitude". Although I don't think this has ever been argued in court this way (abortion rights are always argued as a Ninth Amenment privacy right), I think this creates a much stronger basis in the law than the rights to privacy.

Simply put - it doesn't matter if the unborn is a person or not. The mother has the right to terminate, because the mother has the right to say "no more".

From a moral standpoint, the issue is a bit more gray. While I will not weigh in deeply on it, I will say this: I do tend to agree that requiring a mother to bring an infant to term is forced servitude. Whether the cost outweighs the benefit is a matter for your discussion - I'll not weigh in on it.

[TheDude]

I'd like to add one more consideration:

Abortions happen regardless of the legal situation.

After Germany made abortions legal there was no rise in their number. There was, however, a decrease in botched abortion attempts by unqualified persons and subsequently less injuries and fatalities.

As far as I know the same observation was made in other countries.

Therefore it seems to me that criminalizing abortions only adds suffering and pain but fails to achieve the goal of protecting unborn life.

[Iceman]

If I may add my two crown's worth, viewing the case from my point of medical and biological ground, a mammalian fetus is essentially a parasite on it's mother. And I know that where abortions are allowed in the first place, it can only be done before the fetus can theoretically survive outside the womb. I'm not going to delve into the feminist side of it, as other people can do that better.

[Adamas]

One of the problems Ice is that there are groups who believe that "Life" begins at conception and therefore ANY abortion is the same as walking up to someone on the street and putting a bullet in their skulls. The fact that some of the more militant believers of that POV have done exactly that seems to matter not a whit to some of them. (And yes I know the majority of the "Pro-life" groups have as bad an aversion to such acts as anyone but we've had incidents during the '90s when doctors who performed abortions were murdered and then had a bunch of fuckwads PROTEST when the cowardly pox-bearing,mouse fuckng son of a pus-drinking,disease-ridden gutterdropped corpse eatting rat was arrested and tried.

[Fen]

As someone who comes from a land where both abortion and contraception were illegal during my time of conception, knowing that if they had been legal at the time most of my friends(and myself) would never have come to live, I'm still pro-choice.

I mean seriously, like half of the parents here got together because of an unwanted pregnancy. It's a really shitty environment to grow up with. So you have
1) the mom's life more or less screwed(depending on how young and/or independent she is when she got pregnant).
2) the dad's life potentially screwed(if he takes the moral high ground and decides to marry the woman, for the kids. Or pay alimony. Or whatever way in which he can help raise the child.). Raising a kid isn't easy.
3) As theDude said, abortions happen either way. My mom had 4 between my sister and I. And back then I do believe the clothes hanger method was the norm(as it always had been in the olden days). Having it legal and accessible means less botched abortions which often lead to the mother's death.
4) well, growing up in an environment where you were unwanted can really have a lasting effect on you. I mean, some folks get over it, but most don't. It's a very bitter resentment that's aimed constantly at yourself for something you were not to blame with. Issues galore.
5) let's not even mention the pregnancies resulted from abuse, rape, etc...
6) bonus points for collateral damage (people who for some reason or another feel the need to help raise that kid)

Benefit? The fetus got to see the real world and experience the shittyness for himself. Yay.
(and seriously, having a kid up for adoption is basically the same as throwing a baby off a cliff around these parts. But he got to live before dying so yay?)

[JVDifferent]

In regards to the previous "why does everyone hate America?" debate, for me it is less a matter of hate, and more a matter of dislike, resentment, disappointment and various mainstream views that really rub me the wrong way.

[Count de Money]

I thought I'd raise the issue here, since the Funny Bunny thread is no place for it.

What is with the vitriol against women with large breasts? Some people on this forum find DiDi of Menage a 3 undesirable because of her bust. Her other attributes seem perfectly fine -- young, attractive, very fit, tall, nice (sometimes to a fault) -- but there are some who would pass her by because of her bra size. I'm not saying I've seen it here, but I have seen comments on a picture of a woman with large breasts which said they were gross, disgusting or unnatural.

I don't see people making comments like this about small-breasted women. People don't say a woman with small boobs is misshapen or bordering on handicapped, yet they don't see anything wrong with saying those things about big breasts.

For some larger-than-average women, it naturally happens. Some choose to make their breasts that way. Either way, if they don't complain about them, then why should anyone else? I'm well aware of the problems which sometimes accompany large breasts -- back pain, sores, problems finding proper-fitting clothing and undergarments, self-esteem issues, taunting, unwanted sexual advances, etc. -- but not every woman with large breasts experiences these issues. If they're happy, then why shouldn't we be happy for them?

Breast size should be the concern of the woman who carries them. I find women of all shapes and sizes attractive, and once you get past the physical, it really is what's inside that counts.

[Fen]

It's funny because where I'm from I am constantly taunted(even by almost strangers) because I have no breasts...

The media and porn pushes big breasts, so we've gotten used to considering C cups as the average. Implants help, and lord knows why anyone would like tits which are so obviously fake, but they do. Since real life doesn't actually hold many Didi-sized women, it's considered quite demeaning you see. Lots of girls are seen as unwomanly and unworthy of attention because they have Acups. There are no bras our size, and clothes are bound to be loose. So, the normal people(who have to settle with small-to-average sized boobies, or who have them respectively) start frowning upon the big boob mania, because it's basically saying that not having big boobs makes one less of a woman.

When one DOES get to have natural big boobies she is can be faced against this anti-boob mania thing. Though to be honest of all the big breasted women I've met only a handful have ever been frowned upon for their breast size. NOW, for the NATURALNESS of their breasts is a different thing. Boobs sag. The bigger the more and the quicker. Since the boob mania involves push-ups and implants and more pushups, it can be easy to neglect this, and when faced with real boobies one can get... negatively impressed by this. Because they're idiots, imho, but alas.

So yeah.

Also, de gustibus and stuff. But since liking big boobs is the norm, not liking them means you're special .

And I really hate the fat=big breasted thing, as being one of the very few people who are fat and have Acups. It is impossible for me to find any fitting clothes, because if they are large enough to hold me they have this HUGE sagging piece of cloth where the DDs should be.

(and I have never met anyone say that big breasted women are misshapen or handicapped. I have met a large amount of people that said that small breasted girls are, and never will be women, though)

P.S. I always thought the people who dislike Didi for her breastsize and proud of it are hipsters.

[Adamas]

For me it's simple. I simply don't find breasts that are bigger than my head all that attractive. Is it a deal breaker? No. But I don't get the males that will turn down a nice, sweet, beautiful girl because they are a bit on the smallish side for someone who looks like they had bowling balls implanted into their chest anymore then I understand females who turn down a nice, fairly handsome, stable guy for a total bastard who has more money.

[Fen]

...

Not all big boobs look like bowling balls =/. Those are just implants and or push-ups. Real big boobs are nice soft and delicate and when you motorboat them you are in pillow heaven <3.
The comparison of boobs to money is ridiculous. Boobs to pecs would be more adequate. Boobs are a physical thing, money is a material thing and there are women who have preferences in men just as there are men who are gold-diggers, ffs. And not all total bastards have money, nor are the money-havers total bastards.

[loki]

I personally can find women physically attractive regardless of the size of their breasts, within a certain threshold. I don't like breasts that I feel could be used to wreck building, so DiDi is probably about the upper limit of what I'd find attractive in terms of breast size. Kiley is probably about the lower limit, in that she has rather small breasts, but ones which regardless have a nice shape and still contribute to a feminine look. I actually prefer women that have a physique similar to Kiley, Zii, or Yuki; although I'm definitely willing to make an exception for those like either Sonya or DiDi

It's just that I prefer willowy or athletic - even with six packs or 'swimmer's shoulders' - over huge boobs or booties. Not that I won't accept people with those, either. I believe that I am, and that anyone else is, entitled to be picky about that, too. I just don't think 'picky' includes the right to demean and mistreat those who don't fit your personal taste, especially when it's physical taste you're dealing with.

FYI, physically my tastes pretty much go: Kiley/Zii -> Yuki -> Sonya -> Dillon/DiDi. I find Dillon and DiDi are about equally attractive, probably because Dillon is one variant of what I'd consider exceptionally attractive in a guy with DiDi being at my personal lower end of exceptionally attractive in women.

[Pneumonica]

I tend to prefer smaller breasts, but this is not to say that I have not enjoyed larger breasts. Although in a number of cases larger breasts are less sensitive, and since I enjoy getting reactions the larger breasts seem less entertaining.

And yes, it is all about sex and making out for me. Otherwise, it's just a body, and it doesn't matter to me if it's a diseased, suppurating mass If I'm never going to touch it (and never going to imagine touching it), it really doesn't figure into my assessment.

[Searcher]

I'm moving this here since it might get heated...

The post Searcher is answering is this one in the news thread.

The DAMNed

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Climate change is way too complex to distilled down as they have tried to do and they could actually be wrong or maybe no one is really comfortable destroying our entire way of life based on hypothesis and theory. Gee, do you think that might have something to do with it Dr. Nina Fedoroff? And umm ... one other question if I may, if science is attacked on such policies as being bad science by big business hell bent on enslaving and destroying everything it touches and only the government stands in its evil ways; why am I being attacked for spreading second hand smoke when I am outside on a beach or in the parking lot of my job or even outside my apartment (since I can't smoke in my apartment due to the lease)??????

It's not science that has many us skeptical or wishing we're back in the Dark Ages so we could burn scientist at the stake; it is the politics of the science that has many of us annoyed.

[TheDude]

Well, from a European's point of view (which necessarily is second hand at best) your wish for another dark age may yet come true. At least part of your nation seems to be firmly determined to head in that direction.

[Don Alexander]

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Climate change is way too complex to distilled down as they have tried to do

Where has anyone distilled down anything? Climate modelling is an ever evolving business, strongly dependent on accessible computing power. No scientist will claim their models are perfect, and utterly irrefutably correct. But just because they aren't doesn't mean they should not be used, and improved upon. You know, when you compare the predictions of the models from, say, 10 to 15 years ago with the data from today, it turns out the models weren't that good - because the true situation is a lot worse than predicted. I even noticed this effect when watching An Inconvenient Truth for the first time several years after it came out.

and they could actually be wrong

And they could actually be right. But let's just do Business As Usual, since they might be wrong...

or maybe no one is really comfortable destroying our entire way of life

Soooooo, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other assorted climate protection == going back to the primitive and living in hovels with no electricity and no running water? Or is your "entire way of life" the right to drive gas-guzzling SUVs and get cheap fast food?

based on hypothesis and theory.

It's actually based on incredible amounts of empirical data gathered worldwide. As stated above, the models which these data are fed into are not perfect, and never can be perfect, but we are a lot more sure of these things than your wording of "hypothesis and theory" suggests.

Mark me, I'm no tree-hugger, I've never voted for the Green party, and I'm even pro atomic power *le gasp*.