The Devastatingly Controversial Abortion Thread

**Grod** · 10-24-2008 10:57 PM

Yeah, but he cummed inside her and made half that kid. I mean, if he just bails on the woman while she has to drop out of work, and watch what she eats, and everything, then yeah, it's fine for an abortion. But if he's by her the whole time, supporting the woman and then she decides to get an abortion without his consent, that's bs.

**Sornaensis** · 10-24-2008 10:58 PM

Well yeah... Then she's probably just a bitch, but it's still her choice, ultimately.

**drewmandan** · 10-25-2008 12:26 AM

It's solely the woman's choice because asserting otherwise would very quicky lead to a logical absurdity. For example, if a woman wasn't allowed to get an abortion, she could always fall down a flight of stairs and get one that way. You can't prove that it wasn't an accident, even beyond a reasonable doubt. People do fall down stairs. So my point is, if you try to take away the right of abortion, the right still exists.

**Grod** · 10-25-2008 01:18 AM

I just wrote up a reply, but I'm starting to think otherwise.

Hmmm.

Also, stem cells.

**Sandform** · 10-25-2008 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by drewmandan

It's solely the woman's choice.

I feel like the choice should be on the fathers side too, but sadly that isn't exactly right either. There are dangers to giving birth that a woman must be subjected to in order for a child to be born, so I can't say it would be fair for another person to make that decision for them.

In my eyes sex is a contractual obligation in which you know there is a possibility of a child being conceived, thus without agreement on both sides neither of them should be allowed to abort the child without consent. However this poses a problem because it is more complicated than just that and thus that would never work out.

It isn't really fair that a woman can have a child and then say "it is your baby" and then collect money. So I feel it should be said that if a woman is pregnant and the man and woman aren't in married then the man should be left with OPTIONS. He can 1 choose to give her child support. 2. Choose to fight for custody of the child (these two options already exist) or 3. Choose not to do anything, by opting that the child be put up for adoption, of which the mother can choose to adopt.

**drewmandan** · 10-25-2008 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sandform

It isn't really fair that a woman can have a child and then say "it is your baby" and then collect money. So I feel it should be said that if a woman is pregnant and the man and woman aren't in married then the man should be left with OPTIONS. He can 1 choose to give her child support. 2. Choose to fight for custody of the child (these two options already exist) or 3. Choose not to do anything, by opting that the child be put up for adoption, of which the mother can choose to adopt.

Agreed. I think it's absurd to think that a woman doesn't have the right to abort, but it's equally absurd that a man wouldn't have the right to walk away.

Again, a counter-example can easily be found for whatever arbitrary rule governments use to determine when a man pays child support. For example, if the man must be making a certain dollar amount of salary, what happens if he makes exactly that amount minus one cent? He suddenly loses all responsibility? That makes no sense. The only way to make it make sense is to make it a choice to either support AND raise the child or not support and not raise it.

**[SomeGuy]** · 10-25-2008 01:54 AM

I think abortion is not that big of a deal. As long as both sides (M&F) agree, then cool. Remove the fetus!!!!

**drewmandan** · 10-25-2008 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

I think abortion is not that big of a deal. As long as both sides (M&F) agree, then cool. Remove the fetus!!!!

Why must the father have a say? Suppose the mother wants an abortion and the father doesn't. How could the father stop the mother from getting it without doing something absurd like causing physical harm to the mother?

**[SomeGuy]** · 10-25-2008 02:00 AM

Then that means she's mentally unstable...if she would harm herself to kill her baby?

**drewmandan** · 10-25-2008 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Then that means she's mentally unstable...if she would harm herself to kill her baby?

She doesn't harm herself, the man harms her. The man must physically lock her up or knock her unconscious to stop her from going to a clinic. That's the man's choice to harm her. To say otherwise is to imply that the man has the right to inflict harm on her.

**[SomeGuy]** · 10-25-2008 02:05 AM

Oh, no. I meant that they should have to agree upon it. Holy crap, I didn't mean physical abuse. More like, a sit and talk about it. State your reasons. Come up with a compromise, or agree with a side.

**drewmandan** · 10-25-2008 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Oh, no. I meant that they should have to agree upon it. Holy crap, I didn't mean physical abuse. More like, a sit and talk about it. State your reasons. Come up with a compromise, or agree with a side.

Suppose there is no compromise. The woman is dead-set on an abortion, and the man will absolutely not allow it? What then? What breaks down? Either the man truly has no say or the man has the right to harm her. One or the other.

**Sornaensis** · 10-25-2008 02:11 AM

The man has no choice. It's not him having the kid, so he can't force the woman to do shit.

**[SomeGuy]** · 10-25-2008 02:14 AM

Well, if they can't come to a compromise, they break up, or like you say,it gets ba-a-a-a-ad.

**drewmandan** · 10-25-2008 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

The man has no choice. It's not him having the kid, so he can't force the woman to do shit.

Exactly.

**[SomeGuy]** · 10-25-2008 02:17 AM

Which also makes sense. He might not have the right to force her to do anything, but he could.

**Mes Tarrant** · 10-25-2008 05:50 AM

Wow hey, these arguments for abortion are really good! I don't think I have anything to add.. hmm.. yay!

**zeneyes** · 10-25-2008 06:52 AM

Abortion should be legal for one reasonl...overpopulation. Abortion is one of the few choices to help with this problem. Euthanasia is the other. Most other options are ethically wrong. We live in a world that supports us with a limited amount of arable land to create food. At some point human population will surpass the ability for the earth to support our existance. We have already surpassed the point where the Earth can support us via renewable means. If it were not for the massive petroleum inputs into the soil via herbacides, pestacides, fungacides, and plain fuel to power the food manufacturing process, we would have tapped out around 6 billion I believe. Petroleum is a limited resource that will eventually peak...at that point something will have to give. The only intelligent thing that mankind can do to curtail this innevitable problem is to deal with our population problem. Abortion is a viable solution. Each new pregnancy is another mouth the Earth has to feed. Why add unwanted/unfortunate babies to the already stressed food supply? We should not only keep abortion legal but the gov. should give birth control away freely, as well as contraceptives. Abortion should be paid for with tax money, and there should not be a social stigma attached. The alternatives are a hell of a lot nastier than abortion.

**Mes Tarrant** · 10-25-2008 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by zeneyes

the gov. should give birth control away freely, as well as (other) contraceptives.

Hell yeah!! The pill is ridiculously expensive at the moment... in the States, anyway. And the price is only rising. WTF.

Fucking morons.

**♥Mark** · 10-25-2008 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by spockman

I value mankind above ape

Human is a type of ape.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Is a whale above a zebra?

No, whales are in the ocean, so they are below zebras.

**spockman** · 10-25-2008 09:01 AM

Human is a type of ape.

In the context of evolution, we are apes with a more highly developed cerebal cortex and limbic system.
There is a certain inherent level of advancement.
At any rate, since the have a cerebral cortex I do value an ape fairly high, just not humanly high.

In the context of religion, we have a soul which applies sentience.

Either argument stands independant of the other in it's context.

Is a whale above a zebra?

Too me, that would depend on which had the better developed limbic system/reasoning.

**Howie** · 10-25-2008 01:25 PM

I would hate to think that either side is PRO abortion. Meaning that is the scenario that was wished for.
It is the usual result in bad planning or NO planning, i.e. lacking birth control.

I agree with about the over population but certainly birth control should not be used as a means to control it.

You always have the smaller incidents which is always the arguing points for the opponents like rape incest, he was ugly, the small chance in the contraceptive failing. etc. Which are very valid points.
Then you have some beliefs that do not believe in a contraceptive. I guess conception starts in the sperm.

Actually it must go deeper than that. Behavior? Not partaking in sexual acts that do not plan for reproduction maybe. Anyone know?

There will never be an agreeable two sides to some of these scenarios. Never!

**Oneironaut Zero** · 10-25-2008 02:46 PM

Does anyone here honestly think that outlawing abortion will stop people from having unsafe sex? Anyone?
Sure, some of the more intelligent members of the population will take it into account, but what about all of those backwoods towns and projects across America? No matter what "regulations" are put in place, people will continue to have kids that they cannot support. And involuntary pregnancies are not always due to negligence. Accidents do happen.

With the act of unsafe sex being as widespread as it is, should abortion really be outlawed? I mean really? Sure, it looks good on paper: "I am 'PRO-LIFE,' WOOT!!" but what about all of those children who suffer because their parents were too stupid to bring them into a world where they could provide for them? Is it better for the children to suffer, over the long term - and risk having kids of their own who grow up in similar, sub-par situations - than to abort them when they are likely too underdeveloped to even have a tactile experience of the abortion in the first place?

I don't know how many of you actually have children, but I made the mistake of having a kid while I was way too young for one. We had a few talks about an abortion but, from day one, I was against it; so it's not like I'm "HOORAY, ABORTIONS!" on this. I actually stepped up to the plate and struggled (and am still struggling) my ass off to provide for my kid. I, personally, couldn't see myself siding with abortion for any of my children, ever, barring some extreme circumstance. However, even though abortion is just one of those things that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I believe it's sometimes necessary and, in some cases, the most humane thing to do. (And we are talking about early-trimester abortions, here. None of that "let me wait a few months" shit.)

Now...I don't know much about the abortion process, itself, but I do believe we should make sure we are using the most humane methods possible. We may have an idea, but we don't know whether or not the fetuses have a conscious experience, at that stage, (or do we? I don't know) so I think it's very important that the fetuses be aborted with that in mind.