Thread: What do you think about abortion?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

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.

Oklahoma saw a reason

I think a fetus becomes a real human when it first has consciousness. Then there is an actual human mind that can be killed. When a fetus has no consciousness, nobody is home. There is nobody there to kill. The neurons at the seat of consciousness come in at around the beginning of the third trimester. I think abortion should be legal up to that point but not at that point or after it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Oklahoma saw a reason

If Oklahoma jumped off a bridge, it would crush part of Utah.

I'm not saying they did the right thing. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter how reasonable and logical your opinion is because its being defeated by the repetitively spread notion that life starts at conception. And people are so hypocritical already they're not exactly living according to any sort of reason.

My personal view is that life isn't as valuable as people like to say, they hold on to an absolutist viewpoint they don't even believe in, absolutely. By in large, the same people that claim to be pro-life refuse to feed the starving because they don't want the poor to become dependent on hand-outs, support the reckless of bombing and the oppressive, imperial nature of our military, belittle vegetarians, and support capital punishment.

But murdering a fetus or "baby" is still somehow wrong. PETA are a bunch of dicks for wanting to free willy but the advocacy groups fighting abortion are heroes.

Originally Posted by khh

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.

That's not the only reason I have, it's just a random factoid I presented I think it's morally objectionable to kill a fetus because of its potential for life as a human, (although it's not my place to stop anyone else from doing so.) which I see as somewhat more valuable than the life of a fish or oyster.

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.

Originally Posted by Grod

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.

biology

Originally Posted by Taosaur

biology

Is this supposed to be clever? I'm actually looking for a response, kid.

Originally Posted by Grod

Is this supposed to be clever? I'm actually looking for a response, kid.

So scroll up, champ. The response is in the thread, several times, devoid of obnoxiousness or condescension, which is more than can be said of your inquiry.

Once there's a pregnancy, its consequences are an inescapable physical reality for the woman. It's her condition. The embryo and every support of its existence are part of her body. The biological reality is, it's the woman's choice. The only way around that reality is to enslave the woman, which women who aren't into Gor LARP (don't google it if you know what's good for you) generally find objectionable.

So can a man avoid paying child support by opting out then? This essentially means the man has no choice in the matter yet still carries a load of the responsibility.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

So can a man avoid paying child support by opting out then? This essentially means the man has no choice in the matter yet still carries a load of the responsibility.

Nope. This is why, in sex.ed., they're always telling men that they should make very sure about prevention. Because if there's a conception, you might just be fucked.

And they wonder why men are scared of getting women pregnant lol.

Men have no control, right or say in the matter once the deed is done. It is ridiculous. Plain and simple.

A woman, essentially, can feel more relaxed about the matter because they have a choice once the deed is done. This is an oversimplification, but clearly true.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Men have no control, right or say in the matter once the deed is done.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

It is ridiculous. Plain and simple.

No..... it's a natural consequence of how we reproduce.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

A woman, essentially, can feel more relaxed about the matter because they have a choice once the deed is done. This is an oversimplification, but clearly true.

c'mon :/ If pregnancy or pregnancy scares were relaxing for anyone, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If I replaced each atom of a foetus one by one, replacing each carbon atom with a carbon atom from a pile of coal, each nitrogen atom from the air and so forth, would that be morally okay? I throw all of the atoms from the original foetus into the sun.

Originally Posted by Xei

If I replaced each atom of a foetus one by one, replacing each carbon atom with a carbon atom from a pile of coal, each nitrogen atom from the air and so forth, would that be morally okay? I throw all of the atoms from the original foetus into the sun.

Assuming you replace them without disturbing anything and without putting those you remove back together into a fetus first, I can't see how anyone could possibly find that morally wrong. That is after all essentially how we survive.

Let me see if I can say what I want to say without confusing anything in my own head, or anyone else's.

Men and women both enjoy sex, a totally natural feeling.

Men and women are both driven towards sex.

When men and women have sex, the recult/consequence is a pregnancy (if things work right).

The effects of the pregnancy only happen to the woman. That is to say, even if the man decided to walk the Earth like Caine, the pregnancy would still happen to the woman.

The woman should be able to choose what happens to her body, just as freely as the man can.

If the couple is ready for a baby, together, then it will happen.

If men had the option of bringing a baby to term within their own body, or taking over the pregnancy from the woman, then I could see giving the man full say in what happens to the pregnancy even if the woman wasn't willing to have a child.

But since a man can't do that...a woman should be able to choose for herself what happens within her body, and without government interference.

Originally Posted by khh

Assuming you replace them without disturbing anything and without putting those you remove back together into a fetus first, I can't see how anyone could possibly find that morally wrong. That is after all essentially how we survive.

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?

Originally Posted by Xei

If I replaced each atom of a foetus one by one, replacing each carbon atom with a carbon atom from a pile of coal, each nitrogen atom from the air and so forth, would that be morally okay? I throw all of the atoms from the original foetus into the sun.

As Alan Watts would say, the prickly viewpoint of the pro-life side of the argument falls apart in the goo of reality.

Originally Posted by melanieb

Let me see if I can say what I want to say without confusing anything in my own head, or anyone else's.

Men and women both enjoy sex, a totally natural feeling.

Men and women are both driven towards sex.

When men and women have sex, the recult/consequence is a pregnancy (if things work right).

The effects of the pregnancy only happen to the woman. That is to say, even if the man decided to walk the Earth like Caine, the pregnancy would still happen to the woman.

The woman should be able to choose what happens to her body, just as freely as the man can.

If the couple is ready for a baby, together, then it will happen.

If men had the option of bringing a baby to term within their own body, or taking over the pregnancy from the woman, then I could see giving the man full say in what happens to the pregnancy even if the woman wasn't willing to have a child.

But since a man can't do that...a woman should be able to choose for herself what happens within her body, and without government interference.

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?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

As Alan Watts would say, the prickly viewpoint of the pro-life side of the argument falls apart in the goo of reality.

It's an interesting way of saying it. Why do you say the pro-life side, though? Doesn't all of morality fall into the hole, including both sides of the abortion argument?

Originally Posted by Xei

It's an interesting way of saying it. Why do you say the pro-life side, though? Doesn't all of morality fall into the hole, including both sides of the abortion argument?

Yes. I suppose I considered the pro-life side more absolutist, but both sides are absolutist. One has the right to do as they please with their own individual body and telling them what they can and cannot do impinges on their personal, god given rights. Period. The other holds all life sacred and believes each life has the right to exist no matter what stage of development it is in. Period.

You were just focusing on replacing atoms to poke holes in the pro-life argument, so I was agreeing that in reality, you cannot objectively claim life is sacred because it's a judgment call as to what constitutes life. But that goes for the right to your body argument as well because on the atomic level you don't possess that, either.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

As Alan Watts would say, the prickly viewpoint of the pro-life side of the argument falls apart in the goo of reality.



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?

This is exactly the point.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Yes.



No..... it's a natural consequence of how we reproduce.



c'mon :/ If pregnancy or pregnancy scares were relaxing for anyone, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

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

By that reasoning, a man should not be faithful to his partner, but spread his seed as much as possible. This is reducing it to mere biology. Again, ridiculous.

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 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.

Originally Posted by melanieb

Let me see if I can say what I want to say without confusing anything in my own head, or anyone else's.

Men and women both enjoy sex, a totally natural feeling.

Men and women are both driven towards sex.

When men and women have sex, the recult/consequence is a pregnancy (if things work right).

The effects of the pregnancy only happen to the woman. That is to say, even if the man decided to walk the Earth like Caine, the pregnancy would still happen to the woman.

The woman should be able to choose what happens to her body, just as freely as the man can.

If the couple is ready for a baby, together, then it will happen.

If men had the option of bringing a baby to term within their own body, or taking over the pregnancy from the woman, then I could see giving the man full say in what happens to the pregnancy even if the woman wasn't willing to have a child.

But since a man can't do that...a woman should be able to choose for herself what happens within her body, and without government interference.

Somewhat reasonable.

But child support and making known the biological father is not reasonable. What do you think of that?

I am repeating myself; however, if the woman chooses to have the child against what the man wants, then this should now be the woman's responsibility. She has made a 'selfish' move, and so it should remain to her self. To then bring in the man for child support and identity....just lol. This is difficult to reason with people who are flat out 'pro-life', of course.

I guess because the law is the law, women will choose to get free money. Who wouldn't? After all, we're such a selfish bunch, aren't we? I don't think a lot of women would demand child support if such an opportunity did not exist though.