What do you think about abortion?

melanieb: Yes, precisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So you're saying it's okay to destroy one life in return for another?

Or are you saying it's literally the same life?

---

Each day our cells die and new ones take their place. It's not the individual cell, or the individual molecules and atoms it's made up of, that makes us what we are. Rather, it's the order and the pattern within and between them. So I'm saying it would literally be the same life - assuming that order is preserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Think about this example. Let's say a woman wants a child and she gets a man incredibly drunk and has sex with him. The man remembers nothing, but in the moment he got so aroused he could not control himself (and this is something more easily understood by the male perspective as women generally feel resistance when engaging with a new partner while men have to fight their carnal urges. Basically I'm saying it's more difficult for a man to hold onto their Apollonian values in the face of the possibility of sex than a woman). Now this girl gets pregnant, and after a quick blood-test she can force the man to send her checks for the next 18 years. Is that fair?

---

I know this situation is a possibility, but it assumes the woman is maliciously attempting to get pregnant or is crazy enough to do this merely to get child support, which only rarely would be enough to support herself and a child for 18 years (assume a celebrity). This is hardly frequent enough to base legislation on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Let's just say it is the valid right of the woman to decide whether the baby exists or does not.
It should not also follow then, that the woman having made her selfish choice can again CHOOSE whether to demand CSA (child support), andddd whether to make it known that you're the biological father. A woman chooses those three things, and a man just waits for the consequences, irrespective of his position in it.
I don't see how this doesn't seem ridiculous to people. These are potentially two people together, two. Not fking one.

---

Calling a woman selfish if she decides to have a baby is pretty condescending. Both a man and a woman should go into every act of sex knowing what the potential consequence is. You can't say you are ignorant of how a baby is made, that's basic health class from elementary and middle school.

If a woman does decide to keep a baby then it's hardly selfish. She will spend the next 8 months ( let's say from the moment of discovery she is pregnant) gaining weight, stretching her body, experiencing mild to incredible nausea, with a giant weight sitting on her bladder. Then, once she gives birth, she'll likely rip from her vagina to her asshole, bleeding and requiring stitches, especially if this is her first child. But it doesn't stop there. She likely has hemmorhoids, itching from the previously mentioned stitches, and she is still both fat and covered in stretch marks which make her feel self-conscious about her body. And if that wasn't enough, her breasts are swollen and she has to change her wardrobe because she is lactating with milk oozing from her nipples regularly. But still the fun doesn't stop. See, now the baby needs to feed from those oozing nipples, and sore nipples are no fun, and are even worse when the baby finally grows teeth and mashes down on those nipples for the first time.

Yet still there's more to come. If the man is not in the picture then the woman is looked down upon by society (in general) as being a bad mother or a bad person because the man didn't want to be with her, which is driven home when she goes to the WICC office to get aid to buy food for her and her child, because child support just doesn't go far enough to pay the bills and buy food. In the coming years the child will need diapers, then clothes, then bigger clothes, not to mention doctor visits and immunizations, and all of that just gets the child up to school age.

So, if I haven't driven the point home already, deciding to have a child is probably the least selfish thing a woman will ever do with her life, and any man who says otherwise deserves every word I'm currently thinking of to be tattooed on his face and his penis with an unsterile needle.


It takes two to have sex, responsibly or not, and only one to have a baby. It takes two to make a family, and if the man doesn't want to be a part of that or isn't ready then he can walk away with absolutely no consequences, unless he decides to own up to his part in the pregnancy or the law catches up with him.

Either way, the last thing a woman could ever be called is selfish, simply because she decides to allow a pregnancy to go to term.

I dare you to bring that argument face-to-face, in person, to a woman who has had a child. I truly dare you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melanieb

I know this situation is a possibility, but it assumes the woman is maliciously attempting to get pregnant or is crazy enough to do this merely to get child support, which only rarely would be enough to support herself and a child for 18 years (assume a celebrity). This is hardly frequent enough to base legislation on.




Calling a woman selfish if she decides to have a baby is pretty condescending. Both a man and a woman should go into every act of sex knowing what the potential consequence is. You can't say you are ignorant of how a baby is made, that's basic health class from elementary and middle school.

If a woman does decide to keep a baby then it's hardly selfish. She will spend the next 8 months ( let's say from the moment of discovery she is pregnant) gaining weight, stretching her body, experiencing mild to incredible nausea, with a giant weight sitting on her bladder. Then, once she gives birth, she'll likely rip from her vagina to her asshole, bleeding and requiring stitches, especially if this is her first child. But it doesn't stop there. She likely has hemmorhoids, itching from the previously mentioned stitches, and she is still both fat and covered in stretch marks which make her feel self-conscious about her body. And if that wasn't enough, her breasts are swollen and she has to change her wardrobe because she is lactating with milk oozing from her nipples regularly. But still the fun doesn't stop. See, now the baby needs to feed from those oozing nipples, and sore nipples are no fun, and are even worse when the baby finally grows teeth and mashes down on those nipples for the first time.

Yet still there's more to come. If the man is not in the picture then the woman is looked down upon by society (in general) as being a bad mother or a bad person because the man didn't want to be with her, which is driven home when she goes to the WICC office to get aid to buy food for her and her child, because child support just doesn't go far enough to pay the bills and buy food. In the coming years the child will need diapers, then clothes, then bigger clothes, not to mention doctor visits and immunizations, and all of that just gets the child up to school age.

So, if I haven't driven the point home already, deciding to have a child is probably the least selfish thing a woman will ever do with her life, and any man who says otherwise deserves every word I'm currently thinking of to be tattooed on his face and his penis with an unsterile needle.


It takes two to have sex, responsibly or not, and only one to have a baby. It takes two to make a family, and if the man doesn't want to be a part of that or isn't ready then he can walk away with absolutely no consequences, unless he decides to own up to his part in the pregnancy or the law catches up with him.

Either way, the last thing a woman could ever be called is selfish, simply because she decides to allow a pregnancy to go to term.

I dare you to bring that argument face-to-face, in person, to a woman who has had a child. I truly dare you.

---

I agree. Me spurting out 'selfish' was because I'm quite passionate about the issue, and allowed emotion to interfere with reason. You must also realise that I'm not arguing pro or con toward the life of a child. Clearly having a child is not selfish. But, what you missed is that the woman can choose to NOT have the child. Would you still say this is not selfish - for the man and the child?

Child support, ideally, should not come from the man, but from the local government. Then my problems with this would be quite mitigated. Unless, of course, women could not choose to abort the child, then demanding child support from a man wouldn't seem unreasonable, i.e., woman is pregnant, so both the man and woman have to deal with it. It is done. Support together. No abortion, no getting out of child support. Fair, and pro-life.

I may have sounded like I was saying having a child is selfish. I don't. I just meant, primarily, that if a man wants a child, a woman can deny that. And that is seemingly selfish to me.

By the way, Mel, if I am further stirring emotional turmoil in you, then I will no longer respond. For I do not wish for that. I'll keep such opinions to myself.

Just glad this is occurring over a forum and not face-to-face. Don't think I'd come out alive. LOL

I'm gonna move this to Extended Discussion now. Sorry OP >_>
The lounge won't hide things from getting nasty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

melanieb: Yes, precisely.


Each day our cells die and new ones take their place. It's not the individual cell, or the individual molecules and atoms it's made up of, that makes us what we are. Rather, it's the order and the pattern within and between them. So I'm saying it would literally be the same life - assuming that order is preserved.

---

So, if instead of replacing each atom with one corresponding atom, you could replace it with a pair of corresponding atoms, and then split apart the result into two foetuses?

I have decided to reply inline.

I sat outside and drank a beer. I feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I agree. Me spurting out 'selfish' was because I'm quite passionate about the issue, and allowed emotion to interfere with reason. You must also realise that I'm not arguing pro or con toward the life of a child. Clearly having a child is not selfish. But, what you missed is that the woman can choose to NOT have the child. Would you still say this is not selfish - for the man and the child?

I can't say this is selfish. If she isn't ready for all that comes along with it, including confidence in her partner, then she should be able to make that choice. There are far too many factors for a woman to consider that the majority of men will never even think of, let alone understand or be able to empathize with.

Child support, ideally, should not come from the man, but from the local government. Then my problems with this would be quite mitigated. Unless, of course, women could not choose to abort the child, then demanding child support from a man wouldn't seem unreasonable, i.e., woman is pregnant, so both the man and woman have to deal with it. It is done. Support together. No abortion, no getting out of child support. Fair, and pro-life.

Child support should not come from the government as the main provider, though help should be available if necessary. The act of pregnancy was between the man and the woman, and the man, being capable of sex, should also be capable of working as hard as he possibly can to provide for that child. Anything less and he is not a man. Likewise, the woman should also do whatever she can to prepare for the arrival of the child before she is no longer able to work.

I may have sounded like I was saying having a child is selfish. I don't. I just meant, primarily, that if a man wants a child, a woman can deny that. And that is seemingly selfish to me.

The man can always go and find another woman to have a child with if the one he is with does not desire a child. His sacrifice is only emotional, and happiness may be found again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melanieb

I have decided to reply inline.

I sat outside and drank a beer. I feel better.

---

I'm glad. Whilst I respect your perspective, I'm not going to reply to this. I'm done here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melanieb

I know this situation is a possibility, but it assumes the woman is maliciously attempting to get pregnant or is crazy enough to do this merely to get child support, which only rarely would be enough to support herself and a child for 18 years (assume a celebrity). This is hardly frequent enough to base legislation on.

---

I've seen just that happen. Women are capable of malicious behavior to get babies and money. I don't know the statistical odds but I also don't think legislation should be based upon assuming something will be rare enough it doesn't matter. The law must be fair. Giving a man responsibility over a child but giving him no choice in the matter is as bad as banning abortion and taking the choice away from women. If the men were not forced to pay child support, it would be a different story, but they are. This makes them just as responsible for the child as the female, whether or not they're ready to support kids.

Let's ignore the absolutist claim about personal rights and look realistically about the common good we're striving for. We're attempting to lift the burden from people who are not ready to take it or do not desire it. If a woman chooses to keep her baby, is it really fair to force a man to help support it, even if he never wanted one? I'm not saying a man should get to decide if the woman should abort, I'm just saying it's only fair to allow the man to choose his participation in the child's life and if the woman does not believe she's capable of raising the child on her own, it's no more fair to force the man to send money as it is to force the woman to have the child.

So...if the woman has a baby that the man never wanted...the man should be allowed to forego any responsibility for a life that is now in need of support for many years to come?

Many pregnancies are not expected, by man or woman, but just because the woman chooses to have it doesn't wipe away the man's part in creating it.

Neither partner should have sex without being fully aware of all that could come of it, and both should be ready to stand up and accept responsibility for their actions.

Personal accountability.

Of course, this has strayed a bit from abortion.

People should be able to choose, together or separate.

And I'm done. This topic is way sour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melanieb

So...if the woman has a baby that the man never wanted...the man should be allowed to forego any responsibility for a life that is now in need of support for many years to come?

Many pregnancies are not expected, by man or woman, but just because the woman chooses to have it doesn't wipe away the man's part in creating it.

Neither partner should have sex without being fully aware of all that could come of it, and both should be ready to stand up and accept responsibility for their actions.

Personal accountability.

Of course, this has strayed a bit from abortion.

People should be able to choose, together or separate.

And I'm done. This topic is way sour.

---

If the man chose to have the child, he would volunteer to support it. His support is of equal status to the birth itself as far as choice is concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

You can't reduce the complexity of human relationships, rights, n laws to mere biology. We're more than animals.

---

Actually, you can. And you can go further, and reduce it to maths; the ultimate foundation of everything. And since you can, that kinda puts a damper on the idea that our society and interactions are anything more than that.

That probably makes me somewhat of a nihilist :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

So, if instead of replacing each atom with one corresponding atom, you could replace it with a pair of corresponding atoms, and then split apart the result into two foetuses?

---

That's a whole other issue. That might cause a moral dilemma, and I can't say off hand what I would think was right. But I think that's straying out into the morals of cloning (sci-fi cloning, not science cloning).

this thread is already way too full of analogies but this is the only good one I know why am i even making this post

if a 1 year old baby is going to die of a lack of appendix right next to you, and you're the only person in the entire world that has the appropriate appendix to transplant, should it be illegal to deny the transplant?
if no, then why is abortion different?
choice isn't something that comes and goes either. fetuses do develop socially and mentall in the womb, but I don't care if the fetus can speak english and tapdance when it pops out of there, the woman controls her own body and should be allowed to do what she wants with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grod

I don't care about abortion, because it doesn't impact me. I don't care about fetuses.

But the whole "it's a women's body, she should decide what to do with it" idea doesn't make sense to me. A man took an equal part of making the fetus. Yes, the women carries the life, but why is it solely her right to determine what to do with the creature? If someone can explain it to me, I'd like to hear it. But without the self-righteous, smug, and condescending attitude internet atheists usually hold. Just calmly explain it without the obnoxious contention.

---

the woman carries it to birth. that's all. the man doesn't have an equal part in the creation of the baby. it doesn't drain or tax his body.

Omnis Dei and Wolfwood make an interesting point about the man not having a say in the matter. I think that researching and testing more contraceptive methods for men would be beneficial. As of right now, men have two options: condoms and vasectomies. Condoms aren't as effective as people think. Most people do not follow the directions correctly, which leads to higher chances of pregnancy. Condoms are also considered to be a hassle by men. Vasectomies are relatively cheap and do a great job in preventing pregnancies, but that is psychologically a huge decision to make. Freezing sperm is an option, but also requires a decent investment. And if you want to reverse the vasectomy, it costs thousands of dollars.

Half of pregnancies are unintended, so creating convenient and affordable contraceptive methods would create a large decrease in unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions. Allowing men to play a larger part in the baby-prevention process would help to make them more responsible.

Having the government provide for single women instead of men for child support is an interesting idea, but if it was ever implemented, should only be done in rare circumstances.

Back to abortion though, I read an academic article recently stating how an abortion and an after-birth abortion could be considered morally equivalent. I don't agree with the idea, but it was interesting to mull over. Good food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minerva & Giubilini's Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

---

You can find the article here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

That's a whole other issue. That might cause a moral dilemma, and I can't say off hand what I would think was right. But I think that's straying out into the morals of cloning (sci-fi cloning, not science cloning).

---

That wasn't what I was driving at. I'm not considering morals just now; it's just that, according to the line of reasoning that you initially employed, both lives are the original life. That seems rather contradictory?

My main problem with abortion is not the cell killing per se ( I am highly against it once it reaches the fetal stage, but when its still multiplying cells I have less of an issue) My main problem is the ridiculous double standard of this being a purely woman's rights issue.

Heres the real scenario I hate: if a man wants to keep the child and the woman doesnt, then he is forced to let his child be killed. If, however, the shoe is on the other foot and the man doesnt want a child, but the woman does he is forced to pay child support until the child is 18. This to me is completely unfair because the man gets no say either way, but he has to deal with the consequences of the womans decision, weather he partakes or not. Just because the child is part of "her body" as if she could some how have one without a guy and males are somehow incapable of loving a child as much as a female. Oh sure, if the woman is kind enough she can let the guy plead his case and weigh in, but according to law, nothing says he even needs to be notified shes pregnant (if this is incorrect, please tell me)

Its situations such as this that makes me gag when people call it a womans rights issue instead of a human rights issue (for the child, mother and father). To me, its just a cop-out to over-simplify the issue. Rape, is obviously the special case, Im talking about consenting adult sex.

Edit: I missed this analogy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no-Name

if a 1 year old baby is going to die of a lack of appendix right next to you, and you're the only person in the entire world that has the appropriate appendix to transplant, should it be illegal to deny the transplant?
if no, then why is abortion different?
choice isn't something that comes and goes either. fetuses do develop socially and mentall in the womb, but I don't care if the fetus can speak english and tapdance when it pops out of there, the woman controls her own body and should be allowed to do what she wants with it.

---

This analogy is horrible. We are talking about a healthy being which will only die if it is not being given nutrients, and is in your care. A better analogy would be "would you be put up for murder if you were to not feed a newborn?" The answer is obviously yes. But thats neither here nor there as I am ok with abortion pre-fetus, just thought I would say this analogy is off base.

With respect to a father not being able to choose, though; don't you think that the converse situation, i.e., a father being able to a force a woman to have a child, is untenable?

I know males find the whole issue of having no say regarding the fetus' life enraging. Putting human rights and woman rights away, if you have no say in your baby's life, that is a relationship problem and has nothing to do with rights. Your relationship with your baby's mother clearly is not strong enough and she doesn't have confidence in you. Thus, you have no say. Nothing to do with rights. All the human rights and woman rights just make the abortion issue worst.

A lot of people are insisting that the child support laws aren't fair and the law has to be fair, but you can't legislate for utopia. Laws have to address the society we actually have. In that society, males trying to evade responsibility for offspring (whether by fleeing the scene or urging abortion) are more common by a couple orders of magnitude than males being denied offspring due to a woman's choice to have an abortion. The former constitutes a social problem while the latter does not.

(Songza kicked up a Kings of Leon song called "Knocked Up" while I was writing this post :chuckle: )

You have to legislate for physical reality, I'm not so sure you can create unnecessary laws to effect the societal behaviour you want by penalising individuals who aren't responsible.

Government should be in the business of protecting people's rights. The rest is in the hands of society to sort out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You have to legislate for physical reality, I'm not so sure you can create unnecessary laws to effect the societal behaviour you want by penalising individuals who aren't responsible.

---

I'm not so sure anything you just said applies to the subject at hand. The possibility of abortion doesn't absolve men of responsibility for their offspring, the only "societal behavior" the laws affect is the minimal fulfillment of that responsibility (sending money), and the laws have proven necessary to produce that behavior.

Not that I was actually doing this, but...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/effect_an_effect.png

And I just didn't see how one problem being twice as common as another should have anything to do with the law. The law should be about general principles, not pragmatic things like how common the issue is.

I was more getting at one issue being an extensive problem (hence pointing out that it is 100 times more common--an invented figure, but probably a lot closer to reality than your estimate of double) and the other being a non-problem. I disagree abortion being at the pregnant party's sole discretion is a problem, I disagree that women having the opportunity to pursue child support from absent fathers is a problem, and I disagree that stating the two things next to each other makes them a problem.

I didn't say those things necessarily were problems, just that the basis for the decision should come from general, reasoned moral principles, rather than pragmatism.