Thread: What do you think about abortion?

Pro choice, You've all probably heard all the reasons for being pro choice so I'll spare my fingers from typing. This should be a poll.

Oh, edit: I think the father should have a say in it (like if he wants to keep it).

Originally Posted by hassman789

Oh, edit: I think the father should have a say in it (like if he wants to keep it).

Why should the father have a say in what a woman does with her body?

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

Why should the father have a say in what a woman does with her body?

It's ALSO his child. Now that I think of it, it seems that rule would be hard to enforce. So I back down on that stance. Although morally, I think that's the right thing to do, but I'm not going to make anyone's personal decision (that's why I'm pro choice duh). So yeah, never mind on that.

I know this is late as hell, but I'm a daft and stubborn fucker at 1 in the morning.

Originally Posted by Mzrokks

However, personally, religiously, and even rationally, I am and always will be pro-life. Consider this - if some microscopic bacteria was found on another planet, scientists would herald that as the discovery of life on a planet besides Earth. So how is a baby (fetus, whatever word you prefer) not a human being, and how can killing it be justified?

This could not make less sense.

Also, are you suggesting that mentally impaired people do not have the ability to think?

Also also, not aimed particularly at you but, I hate the term "pro-life".

Originally Posted by Supernova

This could not make less sense.
Also, are you suggesting that mentally impaired people do not have the ability to think?
Also also, not aimed particularly at you but, I hate the term "pro-life".

That was emotional psycho babble. Now that I've calmed down a bit, I should be better able to respond. And with the mentally impaired thing I've dragged in a whole other issue altogether.

About the pro-life thing - yes I know, it may sound self-righteous, but it is the way pro-lifers see their stance - as in favour of life, just as pro-choicers don't see themselves in favour of abortion but in favour of choice.

I hope this thread was the catalyst of greenhavoc's ban. It's about time

On topic: never thought about the man having a part of the decision before. I don't really agree with it though, since the woman has to dedicate 9 months of her life for the child's development, whereas the man just has to ejaculate. Should be a mix of the woman's decision and the decision of some sort of government agency who ensure the child will be brought up properly.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I hope this thread was the catalyst of greenhavoc's ban. It's about time

On topic: never thought about the man having a part of the decision before. I don't really agree with it though, since the woman has to dedicate 9 months of her life for the child's development, whereas the man just has to ejaculate. Should be a mix of the woman's decision and the decision of some sort of government agency who ensure the child will be brought up properly.

Why was Greenhavoc banned? You guys have been here longer, so explain to me

On topic, in an ideal world the father would have half the decision. In practice though, it would be impossible to enforce (though if anyone has any ideas, fire away?)

Originally Posted by Mzrokks

Why was Greenhavoc banned? You guys have been here longer, so explain to me

I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the final straw was the picture of an aborted foetus he posted in this thread.

But if it was up to me I would have banned him a while ago, for just being ridiculously unfriendly to people.

Originally Posted by Mzrokks

On topic, in an ideal world the father would have half the decision. In practice though, it would be impossible to enforce (though if anyone has any ideas, fire away?)

This would be your best answer. It all goes down to how well your relationship is with the mother of the child. If the woman really loves you a lot, most likely she will be willing to bear your child.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

The mutual decision depends on the relationship. That's another element of the "pro-choice", the choice of the woman to value the input of the father or not. If there is a good relationship, she will. If not, he has no say.

Some people seem to consider killing a fetus as killing a human. Though this is technically correct there are some more factors that has to be taken inte account. A fetus doesn't know what's going on. It doesn't know that it has a life in front of it, nor does it want this life, as it doesn't know there is such a thing. Killing a grown man on the other hand is something far worse. The man knows that it is alive, and it wants to keep this life. A fetus does not, because it does not know anything about any of this.
Saying that a fetus should have human rights overriding the mothers will to have an abortion is ridiculous. The fetus does not want human rights, in fact, it does not want anything. And the potential mother should have the rights to decide what happens with her body.

Yay for two equally solid absolutist viewpoints butting heads in a world obviously too complex for rigid absolutism.

Personally, I have a moral objection to abortion; I would never want my own child aborted.

But who am I to tell anyone else what to do? It would have sucked to have been aborted myself, and I'm very opposed to late-term abortions (babies can become socialized even in the womb from noises, fetuses whose mothers are around barking dogs are not frightened by dogs when they are born, compared to fetuses who were not around dogs.) so there's a gray area, but i believe IF there is going to be an abortion, make it early.

I do not, however, support any laws preventing early abortions.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yay for two equally solid absolutist viewpoints butting heads in a world obviously too complex for rigid absolutism.

“This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object” - Heath Ledger as The Joker, from The Dark Knight

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yay for two equally solid absolutist viewpoints butting heads in a world obviously too complex for rigid absolutism.

And an endless debate is born.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It would have sucked to have been aborted myself

You literally wouldn't have known the difference.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

(babies can become socialized even in the womb from noises, fetuses whose mothers are around barking dogs are not frightened by dogs when they are born, compared to fetuses who were not around dogs.) so there's a gray area, but i believe IF there is going to be an abortion, make it early.

Those kinds of arguments always confuse me when they're not coming from vegetarians.

Originally Posted by Mzrokks

I acknowledge that keeping the baby brings up a whole new collection of problems, and that adoption is not the greatest solution in the world.

However, personally, religiously, and even rationally, I am and always will be pro-life. Consider this - if some microscopic bacteria was found on another planet, scientists would herald that as the discovery of life on a planet besides Earth. So how is a baby (fetus, whatever word you prefer) not a human being, and how can killing it be justified?

The thing you said on thinking - would a mentally impaired person constitute a human being?

Excellent trolling, I applaud you.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Excellent trolling, I applaud you.

Thank you, my good sir.

Originally Posted by khh

You literally wouldn't have known the difference.

Of course I wouldn't have known the difference, but I'm rather enjoying being alive right now.

Originally Posted by khh

Those kinds of arguments always confuse me when they're not coming from vegetarians.

Why must I be a vegetarian to value human life? I don't eat humans out of the value I attribute to them, nor do I wish to abort a fetus that is already learning and being socialized, what's confusing about that? (Only one of the vegetarians I know is pro-life.)

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Why must I be a vegetarian to value human life? I don't eat humans out of the value I attribute to them, nor do I wish to abort a fetus that is already learning and being socialized, what's confusing about that? (Only one of the vegetarians I know is pro-life.)

Your argument for why abortion is wrong hinges on the fetus being able to learn, experience and being socialized, and if that's what makes it wrong to kill it then it's obviously equally wrong to kill animals. They're also quite capable of that.

Originally Posted by Mzrokks

I'm sorry man, but I seriously disagree with this mentality. Yes, it's women who get pregnant, but one half of the world can not be silent on this issue. It would be very unhealthy

Yes, but this is only meaningful if the man also has a right to decide whether the potential baby is aborted or not. The problem is that irrespective of what the man says, it is ultimately the woman's choice. That is, man wants + woman doesn't want = abortion. Thus, man's say is ultimately irrelevant.

So, if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't want, but she does = she can demand CSA from the man and make the kid know its father. Whereas, if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he does want to support it, but she doesn't want it = no child. lol, it is ridiculous. It takes two to tango.

Other than that, I'm neither flat out pro or against - depends on many variables n circumstances (should be same for as to whether the man has a right).

We should feed the fetuses to the malnourished. Two birds one stone.

Originally Posted by Abra

We should feed the fetuses to the malnourished. Two birds one stone.

I love black humour, but DUDE.

In my experience, abortions tend to suck for all involved (npi), but they absolutely have to be an available option, and I don't hold the decision against anyone: either to abort a pregnancy or to have a child they don't know they can support in comfort. A pregnancy is only ever a potential life, especially in the first three months, regardless of whether abortion's on the table (again, npi). We've improved the odds considerably, but pregnancy =/= baby. Legally, personhood is established at birth. It's a convenient milestone, easily established by the impression it makes and the resulting mess, and I see no reason to change it.

As for whether the sperm donor should have a say, I'm with IndieArthas; it depends entirely on the relationship. After "the act," that relationship is the man's only real connection with the pregnancy. If you want a say, earn one.