Personal thoughts on abortion and parenthood

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Schadrach:

boots:

From Wikipedia (referring to this study):
"The largest study, published in 2005, was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases and found 3% of false reports."

Conflating other studies, false reporting is generally found to account for 2-3% of all rape reports (those are the two little guys at the bottom of the infographic), which in turn is the average for false reports of crime in general.

Two things I think it's fair to note regarding this:

1. There are 1000 guys on your little graphic, in a 20 x 50 grid. Those two black guys at the end indicate a 0.2% incidence of false accusation.

2. There have been many studies regarding false accusation, and most of them end up with wildly different results. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29 for a convenient table that shows the ones Rumney examined, with rates ranging from 1.5% (15 little guys on your table) at the lowest end to 90% (900 guys on your graphic) at the top end, with the majority clumping around either ~2% (20 guys) [these tend to be the bottom edge of a spread for studies that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that absolutely nothing happened to the accuser at all and treat any case where there is room to doubt either possibility as necessarily an actual rape], ~10% (100 guys), ~20% (200 guys) or ~40% (400 guys) [these tend to be the ones that measure cases where the accuser admits to false allegation]. Usually which one gets used depends entirely on what political position your are trying to argue, but you are literally the first I've ever seen claim 0.2% (2 guys).

That's a good point, I didn't pick up on that. In order to be accurate, the two "falsely accused" guys would need to be in the reported rapes section (which is made up of 100 guys), instead of out where they are amongst the estimate of total actual rapes. Basically, the number of dudes is technically correct, but they've been placed incorrectly.

Regardless, the 2% stat is on level with the rates of "unfounded" reports of crimes (cases where it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that no crime was committed in the first place) in general according to the FBI's official stats.

A good example, how would your study account the Tracy West / Louis Gonzales case? He was given a finding of factual innocence after being able to prove it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime, psychiatrists came to the conclusion that there's no possibility someone else did it; either he did or she's a brilliant liar, and she was researching the knot used to tie her up the day before the attack, but *something* happened to her (there was physical evidence but only in the form of her bindings and injuries). Read up on the case. Was it a false accusation under the terms of the study you want to cite?

Doesn't sound like it. Since the 2% stat refers to cases where there's no possibility that a rape was actually committed, and in this case they were unable to prove (according to the DA) that this was the case, the Louis Gonzales/Tracey West example wouldn't be counted amongst the "unfounded accusation" criteria required by the crime stats studies. That's another problem with the infographic: it says "falsely accused" where it should say "unfounded accusation".

I think you've shown that the infographic definitely isn't perfect. The language needs to be revised so that "rapists" instead reads "total rape crimes" and "falsely accused" is changed to "unfounded accusations". The two figures who represent the latter group need to be moved up to the "reported rapes" section. Finally, I disagree with the use of male stick figures (at least, they're male in the language of toilet doors) to represent rape crime since it doesn't account for female-on-male rape and implies that only men can be rapists. The infographic is still a mostly useful tool, but if you account for these mistakes there's too much of an agenda in it, so I probably won't use it again. I believe in nothing if not candidness when it comes to the issue of rape, because often people will jump on things like the Gonzales/West case - or the fact that men get falsely accused at all - and say that it points to a "trend" of women lying about rape to get revenge on men. If, on the other side of the debate, you try to downplay the number of false rape accusations, then you weaken your argument needlessly. The statistics show that unfounded accusations of rape are no higher than unfounded accusations of crime in general. That alone should be enough to make a point that false rape accusation is not a disproportionately big problem.

Frission:
The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't apply to the current situation. Personhood is not clear cut, and there's a question on whether we should even care. Thw hunter analogy oversimplifies the situation.

If you're looking for clear cut answers then you won't find any. Notice for example the way you twisted what I said in the last paragraph (or took it to a logical conclusion). Did you do it on purpose? Or it is better a lesson to those who would take things literally?

For example, you could define it as being when they are born, in which case abortion is okay until the water breaks. It could be at conception or when the sex is determined. It could be when it has ten fingers. That's why I avoided talking about personhood from the start, because at the end of the day I don't really think it matters. Maybe you shouldn't abort simply by being homo sapiens sapiens, but that is just as arbitrary as any definition.

There is nothing wrong with the analogy. We don't know who or what exactly is behind the bush, so the ethical thing to do is not to fire - because that way I will guarantee that I won't be killing an innocent human being. It's exactly the same with personhood - if we don't know what personhood exactly means and what the criterions are by which we determine the personhood of a subject, then clearly we can't distinguish between persons and non-persons.

If we don't know the definition, then we don't know whether fetuses are persons. We should opt for the option that doesn't endanger innocent life and guarantees their safety.

And yes, I did take your view to its logical conclusion. How else am I supposed to take the statement:

Frission:

For me personhood is when you one can live without an umbilical cord and is capable of living outside the mother's body, since it would get too messy if I started citing higher brain functions, capacity of thinking for oneself and self-awareness.

Should I take that as an allegory as opposed to taking it by its literal meaning? I showed you the problems of maintaining this view. If you accept these consequences, then you are at least consistent with your views.

If we adopt a purely genetic view, which has been confirmed by embryology - then we have a clear-cut, empirical position.

Frission:
You're also harming people by not "taking the shot". There are people who might have more difficult lives if they're denied abortions. I'm not willing to gamble human rights over something like the personhood of the fetus.

This begs the question - is it acceptable to willfully endanger innocent people for the sake of others and is it ever acceptable to kill innocent people for the sake of preserving and increasing the wellfare of other people?

Sure, having a child will make your life more difficult - but does that imply that having an abortion will make your life less-difficult, as in more convenient? Disregard the option of giving the child away for adoption - is it a valid reason to have an abortion i.e I'm going to kill this unborn human because if I don't, my life will be harder.

And I think you are very much willing to gamble with human rights, perhaps not with the mother's but certainly with that of the fetus. You have said many times that personhood is debatable and not clear-cut - so basically you don't even know for sure whether the fetus is a person or not. And you are willing to risk it for the sake of the mother.

Is it safe to say that from your perspective limiting a woman's body autonomy for 9 months is a far greater harm than taking someone's life? If you disagree, then please tell me why? If limited body autonomy warrants an abortion, then clearly this must be the case. Nobody is telling that the mother needs to raise the child, she can give him up for adoption.

If you're going to take anything from this thread, then take this.

El Danny:

[quote="Frission" post="528.398343.16318273"]
That's what I think, really matters.

I think calling it a medical procedure is misleading. Pregnancy is not some disease that needs to be treated - it is a natural anatomical process vital to the reproduction of our species. Abortion is conducted with the purpose and intent of terminating a life, not healing a malady.

manic_depressive13:

SimpleThunda':
Let me ask you this question: Would you rather be aborted, and NEVER have lived (assuming we get this one chance), or would you take life eventhough it may be hard?

Obviously, you're going to pick the last choice, even if you knew you were signing up for a hard life, because even a hard life can turn itself around and isn't void of happiness.

This is obvious. It doesn't take a philosopher to come to this conclusion.

You're right, I doubt a philosopher would come to such a naive and poorly thought out conclusion.

For your information yes, I would rather have been aborted. In fact I almost was, which makes my existence even more disappointing. Now if I want to die I have all these survival instincts and state laws in the way which prevent me doing it comfortably and painlessly.

But I won't pretend my attitude is typical. In fact that little aside was pointless because the question is ridiculous to begin with. A more relevant question would be "If you didn't exist, would you want to exist?" The answer of course being "You would have no opinion because you wouldn't exist, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves."

You have a computer on which you are writing this, so I assume you have the basic essentials to live.

Which means there are people leading -much- worse lives than you.

You are also stating that "you'd rather have been aborted", because?

Your life is thát hard? You are thát disappointed?

Are you depressed?

I'm guessing you are.

A depressed person's opinion on life is... Questionable. When asked the question whether or not to be alive, I'd say that opinion doesn't even matter. If we were to argue over life and death out of the perspective of a depressed person, weird situations would arise.

So, since you are aware that your own opinion is a-typical, why would you insult my philosophy based upon it?

A healthy mind would choose life over non-existence.

And if you're depressed, you should see some sort of doctor. Get yourself figured out, because you probably don't have it half as bad as you think you do.

Seanchaidh:

SimpleThunda':
-> I <- draw the line when you take the responsibility to get pregnant.

And anyone other than you and maybe your sexual partner(s) should give a shit because..?

Your arbitrary line need matter to no one else. A woman has a right to control her body. That includes flushing her uterus of unwanted material whatever or whoever it might be. It's not murder, it's clean-up. And I'd say the same if every fetus was (somehow) a fully developed human being as well. No one has the right to another's uterus. Use of it is something that is conditional upon the wishes of the owner and no one else. Having sex does not imply a 9 month slave contract.

You make a fair point.
But sharing views on subjects never needs to matter to anyone else, yet it's what discussion is based on.

To me, this isn't about rights, or laws. What laws should be in place and which shouldn't. Quite frankly, I don't believe a philosophical standpoint ever wins over a practical one when it comes to law.

To me, this is about the utter hypocrisy with which this subject is dealt with.
The degree of carelessness with which people decide over the life or death of another, whether it is in your body or not.

I sought for reasons, as to why.

Blablahb:
snip

Please, in the future, don't set up your posts like that. It's nigh-impossible to get all that in a decent quote.

1. Used responsibly, contraceptives will bring down the % to what... 99% safety? So I really doubt that.

2. I am not religious. And to be quite frank, I am not seeking at all to change current regulations.
I am quite simply allergic to the hypocrisy with which this subject is treated, with regard to life and death, and the general sense of "normalness" with which we approach this subject and choose over it.
I argue not against the law as it is now, but against the conscience of the people who thoughtlessly flush out their would-be children.

Think for a moment -exactly- what it is you're doing. Denying another person to live. Basically murder.
That's all I argue for. Think about what this means.

3. That was poorly stated on my part. I do NOT believe that a woman should die whilst giving birth, if it can be avoided.

4. From the perspective of an unborn person, there are few good reasons for an abortion. Perhaps in the case of horrible deformities or handicaps. Otherwise, I think even a tough life is worth living. Like I said, given the choice between a tough life and non-existence, I would choose a tough life and I think everyone with me.
If you can't care for the child, and it's sent to an orphanage, I reckon that is also a life worth living. Again, given the choice, I would choose such a life over non-existence.

So from the child's perspective, there is little to no reason for the abortion.

Which means the reason will be selfish, unless in those rare few exceptions.
I don't care how many people answer polls and wave around statistics. People can still lie in polls. People will still lie in polls, even if it's anonymous. Especially on a subject like this.

I doubt many people can admit, even to themselves, that the reason for their abortion was a selfish one, how understandable it might've been.

El Danny:
snip

Please, stop setting up your post like you did. It's nigh-impossible to get a decent quote out of it.

1. Not 100%, but if used responsibly, around 99%, if not more.

2. Like I said, I draw a line at conception. An eggcell or a spermcell is not potential life until conception.

3. Fair point. However, my "goal" isn't to change any laws regarding abortion. It's just to get people think about what they're doing. Governing over the life and death of a human being, 99% of the time out of selfish reasons.

Like I said, almost every life is worth living.
Given the choice, I'd choose almost anything over non-existence, as would most other healthy human beings.
So arguing that you perform an abortion out of consideration for the child does not hold any ground to me. Unless, say, the child would be horribly deformed or handicapped. That's when I can imagine abortion to be an option. Especially if it's an unwanted pregnancy.
I also seemed to have not been clear on another thing; If the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy, I think abortion or any sort of medical procedures are fine.

4. Apparently, that doesn't outweigh the "positive sides", which, like I explained are selfish by nature.

TheKasp:

SimpleThunda':

And sir, if pregnancy would NOT make your belly swell, and birth would NOT leave you with a loose vagina and some extra flabs, I'm pretty sure abortion would be much less of a consideration. So I am still of the opinion that aesthetics has a HUGE part in considering it.

I would like sources that back up that statement. Because trying to hide behind 'opinion' is as worthless as hiding in air: Everyone has 'opinion' and it is no feat to be proud of, unless you have sources to support your opinion it is worth shit.

I'll try to explain it short and simple:

From the unborn child's perspective, there is no good reason for the abortion, except for when it's perhaps horribly deformed or handicapped.

Thus, the reason has to be a selfish one.

Honestly, I believe aesthetics are a big part of it, but my main problem isn't that, but that we aren't honest about how selfish exactly our motives are.

I don't argue against abortion and I don't argue for law changes.

I want people to take a moment and think on what basis they're deciding over the life or death of another. That basis being a selfish one.
For me, it is hard to fathom how people condemn murder so heavily, whilst an abortion, to me, is in essence the same thing. Denying someone else's life. And for reasons, as I tried to explain, which are selfish.

Asita:
snip

You are the third person I reply to with this exact way of quoting and posting. Please, make it a little bit easier for me to get a decent quote out of it.

1. Condoms, pills. If you want to avoid the situation, it is more than possible. If you chose anti-conception responsibly and still become pregnant, you atleast did what was in your power to avoid it.

2. A lot of numbers and statistics, which, quite frankly, mean little to me. Especially when we're talking about a thing like this. I doubt many people would admit to having such selfish motives for an abortion. I doubt they'd even admit it to themselves, let alone some poll on the internet.

My point is not that I want to see abortion laws change. I am not against abortion.
I am against the hypocrisy of people that choose for them.

Like I argued, a life, (almost) no matter how tough, is worth living. Healthy people will be with me on that. Perhaps some depressed people who argue against it, but to be quite frank, on this subject I value that opinion a lot less.
Sure, there are exceptions. Horrible deformities, handicaps, living as a vegetable. Those are, in my opinion, good reasons to consider abortion.

However, let's say in the vast majority of the cases, it would've been a life worth living.
Which means the reason for the abortion is selfish. And I think selfishness is questionable when deciding over life and death. It's the kind of selfishness people will rarely be honest to themselves about. I want people to -THINK- about what exactly they're doing. WHY they're doing it and what the consequences are.

That's the reason for my post. Not because I want to see abortion illegalized, because as someone pointed out, it's still better than the bloody coathanger approach.

3. You can interpret this in any way you like, but you'll simply have to take my word that I am by no means misogynistic. I am simply always skeptical of people's motivations. Men's and women's. I don't question the possibly of people lying to themselves to clear their conscience. It happens all the time, which is why certain truths never reach the surface, or we are just too afraid to point out things which are there.

SimpleThunda':

Asita:
snip

You are the third person I reply to with this exact way of quoting and posting. Please, make it a little bit easier for me to get a decent quote out of it.

1. Condoms, pills. If you want to avoid the situation, it is more than possible. If you chose anti-conception responsibly and still become pregnant, you atleast did what was in your power to avoid it.

2. A lot of numbers and statistics, which, quite frankly, mean little to me. Especially when we're talking about a thing like this. I doubt many people would admit to having such selfish motives for an abortion. I doubt they'd even admit it to themselves, let alone some poll on the internet.

My point is not that I want to see abortion laws change. I am not against abortion.
I am against the hypocrisy of people that choose for them.

Like I argued, a life, (almost) no matter how tough, is worth living. Healthy people will be with me on that. Perhaps some depressed people who argue against it, but to be quite frank, on this subject I value that opinion a lot less.
Sure, there are exceptions. Horrible deformities, handicaps, living as a vegetable. Those are, in my opinion, good reasons to consider abortion.

However, let's say in the vast majority of the cases, it would've been a life worth living.
Which means the reason for the abortion is selfish. And I think selfishness is questionable when deciding over life and death. It's the kind of selfishness people will rarely be honest to themselves about. I want people to -THINK- about what exactly they're doing. WHY they're doing it and what the consequences are.

That's the reason for my post. Not because I want to see abortion illegalized, because as someone pointed out, it's still better than the bloody coathanger approach.

3. You can interpret this in any way you like, but you'll simply have to take my word that I am by no means misogynistic. I am simply always skeptical of people's motivations. Men's and women's. I don't question the possibly of people lying to themselves to clear their conscience. It happens all the time, which is why certain truths never reach the surface, or we are just too afraid to point out things which are there.

You could simply copy the first bracket and place it around the relevant text, you know. Though I'll work with that style if you want.

1) Again, not 100% effective even with proper use, so it's not reasonable to paint it as if that was the case with a statement such as "If you don't want to get pregnant, use a condom. Period", nor is it reasonable to make official policy around that statement.

2) I'll be blunt, you aren't approaching this from a rational perspective. You just flat out admitted that you won't accept data that doesn't mesh with your preconcieved notions on this topic, even when those notions necessarily conflict with the corrolaries that MUST be drawn and would be far less likely to be lied about, such as the fact that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers, which makes your claim of aesthetics as a primary motivator questionable at best. If you're going to argue against 'the hypocricy of the people that choose [to have an abortion]", you need to address the actual issues rather than those of a caraciture you constructed. You want to say it's selfish to abort for socioeconomic reasons? Fine, say that, nobody's stopping you. You could actually have a decent debate on such a topic. But don't harp on aesthetics as a reason for abortion. That's an indefensible position and needlessly insulting to boot.

3) I want to believe that, I really do. That said, your characterization does paint a rather negative picture in that regard, especially when it wasn't just a one off comment, you took great pains to repeat that opinion over the course of the thread, indicating it's a very strongly held one. Allow me to demonstrate what I mean:

Whether you would identify yourself as a misogynist or not[1], your comments hint at a rather low opinion of women. You didn't just say they aborted out of concern for a comfortable standard of living, you in no uncertain terms characterized them as more concerned with personal appearance than somebody else's life. That's not just selfishness, that's invoking a 'bimbo' stereotype to argue that the women were morally deficient to utterly petty levels. What makes this even worse is that the later posts imply that you seem to take this as a rule rather than an exception. Whether you hold men in similar regards, I cannot say, but from those statements it is very easy to infer misogyny to one degree or another.

[1] And to play devil's advocate, misogyny is like racism, people seem to have a strong trend of not recongizing it in themselves. To them the views are justified in one sense or another

Asita:
snip

I hold both men and women capable of being incredibly selfish and lie about it to themselves and others, afraid of confronting themselves and the judgements of others. It's human nature.
Abortion simply is something that is exclusively a female thing, which is why I exclusively point at females. I'm pretty sure I could think of examples where the same kind of concept works for men.

SimpleThunda':
-

I am criticising your argument because whether or not a living person enjoys their existence has no bearing on the decision of whether or not to bring a person into existence to begin with. You ignored everything I said and focussed on something largely irrelevant. All the signs of a strong and well reasoned position.

Edit: And just because I can't let it slide, I'm not under any impression that I'm not well off in a material sense. That also has nothing to do with anything. Don't imply that I'm being selfish or entitled. If my existence had some sort of bearing on less fortunate people's standard of living that would be a different matter, but it doesn't. That's not how the world works. My life isn't hard by any reasonable measure. I just don't care much for it. Stop making things more dramatic than they are.

Schadrach:
1. There are 1000 guys on your little graphic, in a 20 x 50 grid. Those two black guys at the end indicate a 0.2% incidence of false accusation.

However, there are 100 guys whose crimes are reported to police (i.e. who are accused, in this extremely simplistic world where all rape accusations have a named assailant). Since I would assume being accused is kind of prerequisite for being falsely accused, the actual number is 2% of reported crimes.

Also, you've somehow misrepresented how the statistics in this regard work. There is no "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in determining a false accusation since it is merely the absence of a crime. Police do not have the power to judge "proof beyond reasonable doubt", they do have the power to say whether a reported offence did not occur.

Also, withdrawing a claim is routinely used as grounds for unfounding.

al4674:

Frission:
snip

Clearly it's not obvious because many people would still claim that the fetus can't even be considered a human being.

I did read the article and I fully understand that personhood is debatable - but that's the problem. How can you hold personhood up as a requirement for the right to life when you don't even clearly know what personhood means? In case of doubt or uncertainty, it's incredibly unethical to condone a policy that may very well be violating the most fundamental human right on a colossal scale.

Frission:
Personhood is something that is debatable. We know that sperm or ovules are not people and we can pretty much that babies are. When the distinction happens is debatable. What do you think it means for you then?

How do we know that babies are persons? What are the criterias by which you decide who is a person and who isn't? If you don't know these personhood criterias, then you really can't make such a distinction.

There was actually a paper released some time ago that argued for after-birth abortion, essentially killing newborn babies. The argument was more or less the same - that a newborn baby has not yet developed a personality, memories, abstract thinking etc. A newborn baby is no more intelligent that a dog, so it should be treated as such. The paper argued that since the baby cannot be considered a person in any meaningful sense and fetuses are aborted with exactly such justifications - it follows that newborn children should also be allowed to be aborted.

Here is the article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

Can you tell me what personhood entails to you?

I don't know whether a fetus is a person or not, it's a matter of some debate. But I'm sure a woman is a person. Therefore, a woman's rights trump those of a feuts.

chaosord:

bleys2487:

chaosord:

Been raped. So that's one.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. Calm down and re-read my OT and the rest of my posts please.

Oh, no. I understand perfectly. You're suggesting that men could essentially go around, rape women, impregnate them and not have to pay for a child simply because you believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Ever been pregnant?

I made it pretty clear how I feel about 'your thoughts'. And I don't misunderstand you. Perhaps you should reread what you wrote.

If I want an abortion, I'll have one. Just because you feel as if the fetus is suffering, doesn't mean I do. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. You don't have the right to deny someone that simply because of your beliefs.

You really don't.

On abortion, to me its a grey area. Yes you can still get one, just not all of them. I know of one, its name escapes me, its late term. The baby is forcibly delivered early, but stopped when the head crowns. A spike is then driven into the skull and the brain removed. That is what am I saying should be off the table.

On forced child support. Its finical slavery, largely in favor of women. For at least 18 years.

And as it stands now, women can go around raped men, get pregnant then legally extort money from them for the next 18 years. Yes this has happened https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=male+rape+victim+forced+to+pay+child+support&oq=male+rape+victims+forced&gs_l=hp.3.0.0i22.976.7659.0.8767.15.15.0.0.0.0.74.937.15.15.0.les%3Bcpsugrpq2high..0.0...1.1.n3qr_rchpsA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41018144,d.dmQ&fp=6983e3ffe988c46e&biw=1440&bih=799.

Gee wonder why I am against forced child support?

Perhaps you should've elaborated then on certain methods of abortion being off of the table. I'll still advocate for that option to remain open. Complications can arise in late pregnancy or various circumstances. That could mean that the fetus should be aborted. As the woman is a human and it's her body. She can choose what to do with her body.

You seemthroughout this thread to be a staunch supporter of the fetus and it's rights as a human. That's funny. Because, last I checked a woman is a human too and she's here, right now. But, suddenly her rights cease to exist and she's just an incubator now. And then on the flipside, you would deny her monetary aid for the very thing you're trying to save, the child. That doesn't make sense in my head. At all.

As for forced child support, there's an easy solution to that (most cases, I'll get to that in a moment.) Don't have sex. Don't be an idiot. Don't do one night stands. Use protection. For Christ sakes, know the person well before you do. When you have sex, guys and girls, you're making a choice that can change your life drastically. Men are just as responsible and liable in that act. If you chose to have sex with a woman and understand the potential that she could become pregnant, that's your choice. That's your problem. I have no sympathy for men who complain about that. You made a choice. Deal with it.

As for the rape of men and women becoming pregnant due to it. I do not agree with that. If a woman does that, that's simply vile. Rape is a crime I absolutely despise. He needs to report it. Immediately. He needs to let authorities know and take every action he can against her. The law isn't perfect, believe me. I know. I believe if you rape someone, you lose every right you have, no matter what gender you are.

As for forced child support, there's an easy solution to that (most cases, I'll get to that in a moment.) Don't have sex. Don't be an idiot. Don't do one night stands. Use protection. For Christ sakes, know the person well before you do. When you have sex, guys and girls, you're making a choice that can change your life drastically. Men are just as responsible and liable in that act. If you chose to have sex with a woman and understand the potential that she could become pregnant, that's your choice. That's your problem. I have no sympathy for men who complain about that. You made a choice. Deal with it.

Again, this shifts TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY to the male; the female is stripped of any responsibility for her actions and is allowed (and actively encouraged by society) to set responsibility fully on the male; this is wrong.

Pay attention to what you're saying please.

bleys2487:

chaosord:

bleys2487:

Oh, no. I understand perfectly. You're suggesting that men could essentially go around, rape women, impregnate them and not have to pay for a child simply because you believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Ever been pregnant?

I made it pretty clear how I feel about 'your thoughts'. And I don't misunderstand you. Perhaps you should reread what you wrote.

If I want an abortion, I'll have one. Just because you feel as if the fetus is suffering, doesn't mean I do. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. You don't have the right to deny someone that simply because of your beliefs.

You really don't.

On abortion, to me its a grey area. Yes you can still get one, just not all of them. I know of one, its name escapes me, its late term. The baby is forcibly delivered early, but stopped when the head crowns. A spike is then driven into the skull and the brain removed. That is what am I saying should be off the table.

On forced child support. Its finical slavery, largely in favor of women. For at least 18 years.

And as it stands now, women can go around raped men, get pregnant then legally extort money from them for the next 18 years. Yes this has happened https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=male+rape+victim+forced+to+pay+child+support&oq=male+rape+victims+forced&gs_l=hp.3.0.0i22.976.7659.0.8767.15.15.0.0.0.0.74.937.15.15.0.les%3Bcpsugrpq2high..0.0...1.1.n3qr_rchpsA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41018144,d.dmQ&fp=6983e3ffe988c46e&biw=1440&bih=799.

Gee wonder why I am against forced child support?

Perhaps you should've elaborated then on certain methods of abortion being off of the table. I'll still advocate for that option to remain open. Complications can arise in late pregnancy or various circumstances. That could mean that the fetus should be aborted. As the woman is a human and it's her body. She can choose what to do with her body.

You seemthroughout this thread to be a staunch supporter of the fetus and it's rights as a human. That's funny. Because, last I checked a woman is a human too and she's here, right now. But, suddenly her rights cease to exist and she's just an incubator now. And then on the flipside, you would deny her monetary aid for the very thing you're trying to save, the child. That doesn't make sense in my head. At all.

As for forced child support, there's an easy solution to that (most cases, I'll get to that in a moment.) Don't have sex. Don't be an idiot. Don't do one night stands. Use protection. For Christ sakes, know the person well before you do. When you have sex, guys and girls, you're making a choice that can change your life drastically. Men are just as responsible and liable in that act. If you chose to have sex with a woman and understand the potential that she could become pregnant, that's your choice. That's your problem. I have no sympathy for men who complain about that. You made a choice. Deal with it.

As for the rape of men and women becoming pregnant due to it. I do not agree with that. If a woman does that, that's simply vile. Rape is a crime I absolutely despise. He needs to report it. Immediately. He needs to let authorities know and take every action he can against her. The law isn't perfect, believe me. I know. I believe if you rape someone, you lose every right you have, no matter what gender you are.

Lol. Have you read my posts at all? I have always said a woman has a right to an abortion, just that it should have limits. Like the right to have a gun. You can't have all types of guns and it doesn't give you a right to shoot someone in the face.

Yes both parties had sex. Yes, there is always a risk. However, the choice on if a baby if even born is solely the woman's. And as it is now, she just legally extort money from a man for a choice she, herself, made. There is a massive difference between consenting to having sex and consenting to being a parent. If our biology was different, if we had a mating season for example, where 90% of sex meant she got pregnant. Then I would be okay with your, "Well its a risk." argument. Further more, as it is now, the context of the sex in never taken into consideration. So if a man was forced, tricked, and/or outright lied to he still has to pay for HER CHOICE to be a mother.

Bentusi16:

As for forced child support, there's an easy solution to that (most cases, I'll get to that in a moment.) Don't have sex. Don't be an idiot. Don't do one night stands. Use protection. For Christ sakes, know the person well before you do. When you have sex, guys and girls, you're making a choice that can change your life drastically. Men are just as responsible and liable in that act. If you chose to have sex with a woman and understand the potential that she could become pregnant, that's your choice. That's your problem. I have no sympathy for men who complain about that. You made a choice. Deal with it.

Again, this shifts TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY to the male; the female is stripped of any responsibility for her actions and is allowed (and actively encouraged by society) to set responsibility fully on the male; this is wrong.

Pay attention to what you're saying please.

It's only telling him to be careful of the choice he makes in the last stage in which it is reasonable for him to have one.

And it takes no responsibility off the woman, she still has the consequences of getting pregnant to deal with. Either an abortion or childbirth. If childbirth, giving up for adoption or raising it. Pay attention to what you are saying please.

Bentusi16:

As for forced child support, there's an easy solution to that (most cases, I'll get to that in a moment.) Don't have sex. Don't be an idiot. Don't do one night stands. Use protection. For Christ sakes, know the person well before you do. When you have sex, guys and girls, you're making a choice that can change your life drastically. Men are just as responsible and liable in that act. If you chose to have sex with a woman and understand the potential that she could become pregnant, that's your choice. That's your problem. I have no sympathy for men who complain about that. You made a choice. Deal with it.

Again, this shifts TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY to the male; the female is stripped of any responsibility for her actions and is allowed (and actively encouraged by society) to set responsibility fully on the male; this is wrong.

Pay attention to what you're saying please.

Surely, that's not what he is saying. The woman is still just as responsible for becoming pregnant as the man is that made her pregnant. While the man has to pay child support, the woman has to actively take care of a child at great expense to her own personal freedom for at least 18 years to come. I'd call taking care of a child a pretty big responsibility and doing so because you had unprotected casual sex should probably be the posterchild for "taking responsibility for your mistakes".

SimpleThunda':

Seanchaidh:

SimpleThunda':
-> I <- draw the line when you take the responsibility to get pregnant.

And anyone other than you and maybe your sexual partner(s) should give a shit because..?

Your arbitrary line need matter to no one else. A woman has a right to control her body. That includes flushing her uterus of unwanted material whatever or whoever it might be. It's not murder, it's clean-up. And I'd say the same if every fetus was (somehow) a fully developed human being as well. No one has the right to another's uterus. Use of it is something that is conditional upon the wishes of the owner and no one else. Having sex does not imply a 9 month slave contract.

You make a fair point.
But sharing views on subjects never needs to matter to anyone else, yet it's what discussion is based on.

To me, this isn't about rights, or laws. What laws should be in place and which shouldn't. Quite frankly, I don't believe a philosophical standpoint ever wins over a practical one when it comes to law.

To me, this is about the utter hypocrisy with which this subject is dealt with.
The degree of carelessness with which people decide over the life or death of another, whether it is in your body or not.

I sought for reasons, as to why.

The anti-abortion position is one based almost entirely on semantics-- pure philosophy. Just because the words "innocent human being" can be a label for a small clump of cells doesn't mean that we need to treat those unthinking, unfeeling growths just like any ordinary example of a person. The question is not whether "abortion is murder", but whether you feel comfortable denying women a measure of personal autonomy in order to force pregnancies to term.

There are many reasons not to care too much about the unborn; lack of awareness, lack of sunk investment, lack of need for more children, lack of any conscious member of society feeling that his own life is at risk because of abortion, costs associated with raising another child, inconvenience to already conscious beings. On balance, there are better reasons to care about the rights of women: first and foremost that they are in the best position to know whether they are ready to be parents. With no great need for a large number of children, quality rather than quantity of life becomes the greater concern. Changing birth rates is (by far) the least invasive way to adjust population growth. And changing birth rates through voluntary abortion is the most reliable way to target that adjustment to where people are struggling and where more children would put undue strain on the resources of families.

It's not generally the affluent who feel that they need abortions. It's the poor. The young and uneducated. Pro-abortion is so pragmatic that its pragmatism is rarely contested. It just so happens that a measure of personal freedom when it comes to managing one's own body and life is beneficial more generally. But the debate does not often go in that direction because it's too focused on navel-gazing about the metaphysics of murder or asinine charts comparing voluntary abortions to the holocaust.

al4674:
I think calling it a medical procedure is misleading. Pregnancy is not some disease that needs to be treated - it is a natural anatomical process vital to the reproduction of our species. Abortion is conducted with the purpose and intent of terminating a life, not healing a malady.

It may not be a disease, but for someone who doesn't want to be pregnant, the symptoms and pain you have to endure lead to pretty much the same experience. I'm actually terrified of pregnancy and have a had time viewing it in a positive light, even when said pregnant person is delighted to be having a kid. I can't even imagine going through nine months of something I'm so repulsed by, just on a psychological level. I don't know if this is an uncommon fear, but I doubt it is. Fortunately for you, that's not an experience you'll ever risk or even think about.

al4674:
If we adopt a purely genetic view, which has been confirmed by embryology - then we have a clear-cut, empirical position.

Namely that sailing a boat is murder, because sea sponges and humans share over 70% of their DNA[1]?

al4674:
Disregard the option of giving the child away for adoption

You shouldn't talk about things that you don't have the fainest clue about. Your complete ignorance of the subject prevents you from seeing what things are at play here. Being pregnant is no joke. It's not something you do on a blue monday just for fun and then give the child away.

You can tell by the wording that your ignorance of this subject is of such a level it's even becoming offensive. I'd advise to never say such a thing to the face of someone who is looking to get an abortion for one thing. Like I said before, if in my case it had gone wrong, and someone attacked me over needing an abortion, I wouldn't be able to guarantee their safety. There's some things you just can't say, and such an attack on people in a dire situation is one of those things.

I'm fine with pro-choice up until the first heart beat. After that, I don't think it should be legal. (Expect special circumstance)

Blablahb:
Namely that sailing a boat is murder, because sea sponges and humans share over 70% of their DNA

So, what's your point? A zygote shares 100% of their DNA with humans. The DNA that I have now is the same that I had when I was a single cell. That DNA essentially proves that there exists a individual, unique human being.

Blablahb:

You shouldn't talk about things that you don't have the fainest clue about. Your complete ignorance of the subject prevents you from seeing what things are at play here. Being pregnant is no joke. It's not something you do on a blue monday just for fun and then give the child away.

You can tell by the wording that your ignorance of this subject is of such a level it's even becoming offensive. I'd advise to never say such a thing to the face of someone who is looking to get an abortion for one thing. Like I said before, if in my case it had gone wrong, and someone attacked me over needing an abortion, I wouldn't be able to guarantee their safety. There's some things you just can't say, and such an attack on people in a dire situation is one of those things.

Well, I'm sorry that you're offended, but who are we kidding right? These days you can't say anything without someone getting offended. Maybe you should just grow a thicker skin.

CityofTreez:
I'm fine with pro-choice up until the first heart beat. After that, I don't think it should be legal. (Expect special circumstance)

Why ever would you use the heartbeat as a cut-off date? Some archaic notion of the heart as the seat of the soul or something? Personally, I'd tie such a cut-off date to neurological development and choose a particular stage there. The heart is just a pump. It can be replaced. It's not what makes you human.

al4674:
So, what's your point? A zygote shares 100% of their DNA with humans.

That's impossible. If that held true we'd be clones of eachother and long extinct due to inbreeding. Your position is biologically incorrect, artificial and undefendable.

al4674:
Well, I'm sorry that you're offended, but who are we kidding right? These days you can't say anything without someone getting offended. Maybe you should just grow a thicker skin.

That's hardly an excuse for your behaviour. Still, I'd like to thank you for helping me illustrate that pro-lifers lack empathy, don't care about other people, and are just being selfish.

al4674:

Well, I'm sorry that you're offended, but who are we kidding right? These days you can't say anything without someone getting offended. Maybe you should just grow a thicker skin.

Oh for crying out loud, that's just childish. "Oh sure, I'm an asshole, but it's your fault for being such a wuss", come on, we both know you don't want to come across that way.

But on the other hand, you're right, nobody has the right to tell you what you can or can't say. Doesn't mean they can't walk away from you when they've had enough, though *shrug* And whether the people are too soft or you are too gruff, well, that's just a matter of opinion, I suppose, and you go with what you can live with.

...yeah I struck a tangent there. Feel free to disregard.

al4674:

The DNA that I have now is the same that I had when I was a single cell.

Then you are one really special human. Our DNA tends to change throughout our lives because external and internal factors tend to interfere with the RNA-copying process taking place in the nuclei. Our DNA is influenced by things like how we eat, how much we exercise, how much we sleep, what diseases we suffer and what stuff we inhale, this is effectively how most cancer-types appear (due to mutations in the RNA). When you perform a DNA-test you are not matching someone's complete DNA-sequence, you are lining up certain markers in the DNA and comparing them. That's also why a DNA test is never 100% reliable, because your DNA might have changed or you might be sharing those markers with someone else (most likely someone in your own family).

al4674:

No, if the DNA was identical to every human, then we would be all clones. The zygote shares human DNA, as in it belongs to the Homo Sapien species. The DNA doesn't change during the course of one's life. It is the only empirical, measurable signature that separates you from the rest of the human race.

How exactly do you think we share 70% of our DNA with sponges? Or over 90% with pigs and monkeys? Because there is very little DNA that is purely "Homo Sapiens DNA". Our DNA is not as much a blueprint of a human as it is a massive cesspool of genetic refuse piled up over the course of hundred of millions of years of evolution. In our DNA you will find similarities to all mammals alive today and many "lesser" forms of life such as slugs and sea sponges. Our DNA is traceable back to the very first single cell organisms that came to life in the primordial sea and goes from there to the first land-living species onto the first mammals and all the way up to Homo Sapiens. We share genetic traits with loads of other species, which is why we conduct animal tests on mice (astounding genetic similarity, allowing plenty of medical and genetically tests, up to and including breeding rats with stuff like human ears growing out of their backs).

The presence of "human DNA" does not constitute a living being either. Unless I am to consider every hair that drops from head or every flake of skin I scratch off my feet as potential manslaughter because I am "killing" organic material that contains human DNA. That a zygote has a unique genetic composition does not make it human, just like my stem cells ain't human. They carry the potential to developed into human beings (with a lot of nourishing and protection) but in their current form they are only the potential for human life. In fact, a living, breathing pig could be considered more human than a zygote because the pig not only shares most of our DNA, it also exhibits all the signs we attribute to human life such as consciousness, breathing, heart- and brain-activity and an ability to show emotions, all things absent in the zygote.

Really, you ain't the only one who can dick around with the definitions of what it means to be alive or to be considered human and twist them to suit your needs.

al4674:

Well, I'm sorry that you're offended, but who are we kidding right? These days you can't say anything without someone getting offended. Maybe you should just grow a thicker skin.

Or maybe you should just develop some sensitivity and common sense. There's absolutely no need to be offensive or hostile, especially not when you are completely ignorant about the things you are trying to discuss and lack a relevant point of connection.

chaosord:

Yes both parties had sex. Yes, there is always a risk. However, the choice on if a baby if even born is solely the woman's. And as it is now, she just legally extort money from a man for a choice she, herself, made. There is a massive difference between consenting to having sex and consenting to being a parent. If our biology was different, if we had a mating season for example, where 90% of sex meant she got pregnant. Then I would be okay with your, "Well its a risk." argument. Further more, as it is now, the context of the sex in never taken into consideration. So if a man was forced, tricked, and/or outright lied to he still has to pay for HER CHOICE to be a mother.

I agree, the fetus is solely the woman's choice. You know why? IT'S IN HER BODY. I'm sorry that males and females have different genitalia. But, that's the way it is.

And if the sex was consensual, it's not extorting money. Do you even know what extortion is? The man made a conscious choice to have sex with her in the first place. It takes two to make a baby, sir. The man can say 'No' when it comes to sex. I don't get why you think that places ALL responsibility upon the male. He has the choice to not have sex with the woman. That is his responsibility. It's his responsibility to know the person well, just as it is the female, before they engage is sexual activities.

If the man was forced, that's a problem. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH HER IN THE FIRST PLACE. If we're talking about rape, he needs to report it. Being forced into sex is illegal. If he were tricked, he could potentially make a case. I guess it depends.

He needs to know the person he's sleeping with. It's not rocket science. He can't go around and sleep with every female he wants with no repercussions. If he were lied to, that's still his fault and I don't care if you take that or not. If you're being lied to in a relationship like that, you shouldn't be with that person to begin with, let alone having sex with them. You need to know the person. You need to know who the hell that person is LONG before you sleep with them. If you're lied to during a one night stand while you completely wasted, that's your fault. Deal with it.

That is the male's responsibility. And I think that's the easier one to have out of the two. He needs to know the woman. He needs to trust her and have a stable relationship before he has sex with her, so things like this don't happen. Once he makes that choice and they engage is consensual sex and the woman becomes pregnant, it's then HER CHOICE ON WHAT TO DO. The buck stops for the male when the female is pregnant. He already made his choice and TOOK THE RISK OF HAVING SEX WITH HER. She took the risk too. But, it's now her choice.

IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, THEN HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT RISK. He had options and chose the one that could potentially make her pregnant. She chose it too. Now, she's pregnant. Now, it's in her domain. Sorry if that offends you, but it's her body. If he didn't want a child or have to pay child support then he should have said NO. His responsibility is to either say 'Yes' or 'No'. That is not that hard.

Bentusi16:
Again, this shifts TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY to the male; the female is stripped of any responsibility for her actions and is allowed (and actively encouraged by society) to set responsibility fully on the male; this is wrong.

Pay attention to what you're saying please.

Just read above. I responded to you.

bleys2487:

He needs to know the person he's sleeping with. It's not rocket science. He can't go around and sleep with every female he wants with no repercussions. If he were lied to, that's still his fault and I don't care if you take that or not. If you're being lied to in a relationship like that, you shouldn't be with that person to begin with, let alone having sex with them. You need to know the person. You need to know who the hell that person is LONG before you sleep with them. If you're lied to during a one night stand while you completely wasted, that's your fault. Deal with it.

If a woman got infected with HIV by a man who lied to her that he had no STDs, would you jump to the man's defense like that? Because I bet my head you would not.

Seriously, blaming deception on the victim? That's just ludicrous. That's the same as blaming a woman for getting raped because she was dressed provocatively. It's on the same level. And it's just depressing.

Vegosiux:

If a woman got infected with HIV by a man who lied to her that he had no STDs, would you jump to the man's defense like that? Because I bet my head you would not.

Seriously, blaming deception on the victim? That's just ludicrous. That's the same as blaming a woman for getting raped because she was dressed provocatively. It's on the same level. And it's just depressing.

You are quite right with the HIV comparison, again (I feel like a really bad advocate for the woman's right to get child support at this point, considering how often I tend to concede points). However, I think the comparison to rape doesn't quite hold up. Keep in mind that we are talking a consensual sexual encounter here, where (supposedly) neither party insisted on a condom for whatever reason. It isn't as much a forceful removal of the man's rights as it is putting him in a situation of responsibility through neglect of safety precautions.

In a situation where the man used a condom but the woman still became pregnant, I'd be inclined to say he should have the right to appeal to be relieved of his responsibility to provide child care. In such a situation he has, at least, shown that he has taken the necessary precautions to attempt to avoid getting the woman pregnant. He shouldn't be held responsible for defective contraceptives.

bleys2487:

chaosord:

Yes both parties had sex. Yes, there is always a risk. However, the choice on if a baby if even born is solely the woman's. And as it is now, she just legally extort money from a man for a choice she, herself, made. There is a massive difference between consenting to having sex and consenting to being a parent. If our biology was different, if we had a mating season for example, where 90% of sex meant she got pregnant. Then I would be okay with your, "Well its a risk." argument. Further more, as it is now, the context of the sex in never taken into consideration. So if a man was forced, tricked, and/or outright lied to he still has to pay for HER CHOICE to be a mother.

I agree, the fetus is solely the woman's choice. You know why? IT'S IN HER BODY. I'm sorry that males and females have different genitalia. But, that's the way it is.

And if the sex was consensual, it's not extorting money. Do you even know what extortion is? The man made a conscious choice to have sex with her in the first place. It takes two to make a baby, sir. The man can say 'No' when it comes to sex. I don't get why you think that places ALL responsibility upon the male. He has the choice to not have sex with the woman. That is his responsibility. It's his responsibility to know the person well, just as it is the female, before they engage is sexual activities.

If the man was forced, that's a problem. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH HER IN THE FIRST PLACE. If we're talking about rape, he needs to report it. Being forced into sex is illegal. If he were tricked, he could potentially make a case. I guess it depends.

He needs to know the person he's sleeping with. It's not rocket science. He can't go around and sleep with every female he wants with no repercussions. If he were lied to, that's still his fault and I don't care if you take that or not. If you're being lied to in a relationship like that, you shouldn't be with that person to begin with, let alone having sex with them. You need to know the person. You need to know who the hell that person is LONG before you sleep with them. If you're lied to during a one night stand while you completely wasted, that's your fault. Deal with it.

That is the male's responsibility. And I think that's the easier one to have out of the two. He needs to know the woman. He needs to trust her and have a stable relationship before he has sex with her, so things like this don't happen. Once he makes that choice and they engage is consensual sex and the woman becomes pregnant, it's then HER CHOICE ON WHAT TO DO. The buck stops for the male when the female is pregnant. He already made his choice and TOOK THE RISK OF HAVING SEX WITH HER. She took the risk too. But, it's now her choice.

IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, THEN HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT RISK. He had options and chose the one that could potentially make her pregnant. She chose it too. Now, she's pregnant. Now, it's in her domain. Sorry if that offends you, but it's her body. If he didn't want a child or have to pay child support then he should have said NO. His responsibility is to either say 'Yes' or 'No'. That is not that hard.

Bentusi16:
Again, this shifts TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY to the male; the female is stripped of any responsibility for her actions and is allowed (and actively encouraged by society) to set responsibility fully on the male; this is wrong.

Pay attention to what you're saying please.

Just read above. I responded to you.

If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either. Or kept the baby.

What you are saying is, "For every month that baby was in her body, she should get two years of payments from the man who put it there. Even if it was her choice to leave it there and even though she choose to take on the responsibility of being a single parent instead of giving up that right. BECAUSE, DAMN IT, SHE WANTS TO BE A MOMMY EVEN IF SHE CAN'T AFFORD IT! BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, DAMN IT!"

Sorry but that just doesn't fly with me.

chaosord:

If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either. Or kept the baby.

What you are saying is, "For every month that baby was in her body, she should get two years of payments from the man who put it there. Even if it was her choice to leave it there and even though she choose to take on the responsibility of being a single parent instead of giving up that right. BECAUSE, DAMN IT, SHE WANTS TO BE A MOMMY EVEN IF SHE CAN'T AFFORD IT! BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, DAMN IT!"

Sorry but that just doesn't fly with me.

It doesn't fly with you because you fail to realize that for every year the man pays child support the woman is raising a child. I pointed this out before and you didn't address it then either. There are plenty of reasons to not have an abortion (medical, ethical, religious, conscience-based) or want to adopts away a baby. You are, once again, belittling the emotional duress a woman is under when she finds out that she is unwanted pregnant. You are failing to realize just how hard many of these choices (abortion, adoption, keeping a baby) are really hard, especially in a society which loves to compare abortion to murder and adoption/leaving the baby in a foster home as proof you are a bad mother (and in extension a bad woman) on top of the stigma of having your baby taken care off by the authorities.

Instead, you are bemoaning that the man has to take a financial responsibility for a child he helped conceived and continually paint the mother out as "too weak" to do what has to do if she suffers an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that you had to make a massive strawman about "female superiority" in all caps instead of addressing the argument just really shows the extent of your misogynism; failing completely to understand the situation of the mother because the man is inconvenienced by having to take responsibility.

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either. Or kept the baby.

What you are saying is, "For every month that baby was in her body, she should get two years of payments from the man who put it there. Even if it was her choice to leave it there and even though she choose to take on the responsibility of being a single parent instead of giving up that right. BECAUSE, DAMN IT, SHE WANTS TO BE A MOMMY EVEN IF SHE CAN'T AFFORD IT! BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, DAMN IT!"

Sorry but that just doesn't fly with me.

It doesn't fly with you because you fail to realize that for every year the man pays child support the woman is raising a child. I pointed this out before and you didn't address it then either. There are plenty of reasons to not have an abortion (medical, ethical, religious, conscience-based) or want to adopts away a baby. You are, once again, belittling the emotional duress a woman is under when she finds out that she is unwanted pregnant. You are failing to realize just how hard many of these choices (abortion, adoption, keeping a baby) are really hard, especially in a society which loves to compare abortion to murder and adoption/leaving the baby in a foster home as proof you are a bad mother (and in extension a bad woman) on top of the stigma of having your baby taken care off by the authorities.

Instead, you are bemoaning that the man has to take a financial responsibility for a child he helped conceived and continually paint the mother out as "too weak" to do what has to do if she suffers an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that you had to make a massive strawman about "female superiority" in all caps instead of addressing the argument just really shows the extent of your misogynism; failing completely to understand the situation of the mother because the man is inconvenienced by having to take responsibility.

There is that word again. Honestly learn what it means. Right now you are using my refusal to use a gender-based double standard to label me a woman hater. You misandrist, you have made it very clear that you are against male reproductive rights.

Moving on. Since this has been said, a lot I might add, about/to men I think its only fair to apply it to women. If she didn't want to have to deal with making those choices then she shouldn't have had sex. We also have systems in place to help single parents, both men and women, raise their children. Could those systems be improved, yes.

And once again you are using the crappy argument that since some women wouldn't do it, its not an option. Well, women do use it and it is an option. So..... Addressed.

And how does, "its hard for her, those choices", entitle her to getting 18 years of payments? They are her choices, shouldn't she pay for them?

Ah, good old think of the children. In that case, every single red cent must be documented as going towards child support. And if she/he fails to do that then bye-bye child support and your right to be their parent. Better luck next time.

SimpleThunda':

El Danny:
snip

Please, stop setting up your post like you did. It's nigh-impossible to get a decent quote out of it.

It's far easier for me to write a rebuttal like this.

SimpleThunda':

1. Not 100%, but if used responsibly, around 99%, if not more.

Irrelevant, if something doesn't give an 100% guarantee, then getting rid of alternatives is just silly.

SimpleThunda':

2. Like I said, I draw a line at conception. An eggcell or a spermcell is not potential life until conception.

Why? I've never understood this.

SimpleThunda':

3. Fair point. However, my "goal" isn't to change any laws regarding abortion. It's just to get people think about what they're doing. Governing over the life and death of a human being, 99% of the time out of selfish reasons.

You've already proved that the reasons you think women get abortions for and the actual reasons women get abortions are completely different, making your 3rd point irrelevant. Trust me, most women will spent a very long time thinking about their abortion, if not before then defiantly afterwards, it 's never a decision made lightly.

SimpleThunda':

Like I said, almost every life is worth living.
Given the choice, I'd choose almost anything over non-existence, as would most other healthy human beings.
So arguing that you perform an abortion out of consideration for the child does not hold any ground to me. Unless, say, the child would be horribly deformed or handicapped. That's when I can imagine abortion to be an option. Especially if it's an unwanted pregnancy.
I also seemed to have not been clear on another thing; If the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy, I think abortion or any sort of medical procedures are fine.

Irrelevant, abortions are going to happen, regardless of the morality behind it, and what somebody does with their body is quite frankly nobodies business but theirs.

SimpleThunda':

4. Apparently, that doesn't outweigh the "positive sides", which, like I explained are selfish by nature.

Refer to point 3, actually do some research into the issue, instead of making stuff up.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked