Thread: What do you think about abortion?

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.

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.

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.

I have decided to reply inline.

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

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.

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.

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.