On Abortion (Split from Dr. Tiller's Murder)

Most 'fathers' I know end up running off and never actually pay any child support at all. :/

Originally Posted by John

Which happens how often?


And, as I said, that never gets brought up. In these discussions it's always the woman's fault and it's always her that's to be punished.

No one ever notes that, you know, you need two people to make a baby.

It should happen every time.

How often does the male partner get a voice in the abortion? What if he wants to keep the child? Does that ever get brought up in these debates? No, because the males aren't a part of this debate. We're cut out of the picture, "pro-choice" is about leaving the choice in the woman's hands.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

It should happen every time.

How often does the male partner get a voice in the abortion? What if he wants to keep the child? Does that ever get brought up in these debates? No, because the males aren't a part of this debate. We're cut out of the picture, "pro-choice" is about leaving the choice in the woman's hands.

Mostly because men don't have to live with a parasite threatening their well-being for nine months, at the end of which it may kill them.


I realize I make no allies by using such terms, but please try to at least see the issue that way, even for a second. For the first six months the fetus is not a person. It is not even human. It is a thing that drains the energy of its host and which gives nothing in return.

After that, it's a different matter entirely.



If a couple can come to a consensus on abortion, that's wonderful, but ultimately the final say should be given to the mother. If both had an equal vote then odds are that it would end up a stalemate, which would always mean keeping the child.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

It should happen every time.

How often does the male partner get a voice in the abortion? What if he wants to keep the child? Does that ever get brought up in these debates? No, because the males aren't a part of this debate. We're cut out of the picture, "pro-choice" is about leaving the choice in the woman's hands.

And the male deserves to have a say in this how? Because he had an orgasm? Hardly an equal trade off when you consider the woman has something living inside her body for the better half of a year. Said thing completely changes the structure of said woman's body, can have negative impacts on her health (both mentally and physically), and can put her out of work for quite some time. That, and once the baby is born she has to take care of it, even if she doesn't want to. Not only can that be insanely stressful on the woman, but it probably won't lead to the best life for the child either.

Men shouldn't have any say in this. It's the woman's body and general well-being at stake, so men shouldn't factor into it at all.

Originally Posted by erinys

I don't think anyone here supports killing babies.

No one is, I really dislike the semantics that seperate the two groups.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

If the only reason is that they don't want to raise a child, then adoption is a perfectly good alternative.

I suggest you read this.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.c...ro-lifers.html

Originally Posted by Catch~22

If blood stained baby carriages is going to far then please explain to me how 60,000 deaths of potential human beings isn't.

He didn't abort just anyone.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

I've always had a laugh with this one. Just because a child

Sentimentality does not belong in debates, cut it.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

is a product of rape isn't really a reason for killing it, assuming we're going with the whole pro-life spiel. The baby shouldn't be killed for the crimes of it's father, the same way you shouldn't kick the crap out of some kid because his dad did something stupid.

Yeah, because a fetus that doesn't even feel pain or barely has a brain really counts as 'child'.

I think women should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want an abortion or not, unless if they are married, I think the father should have a say too. They will have to end up looking after the child, no one else.

Originally Posted by fratey

I suggest you read this.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.c...ro-lifers.html

Thank you for posting this link, fratey. I saw it a long time ago and could never remember the title or where to find it again, as it's such a thought-provoking piece on how adoption is not always the best or easiest thing to do. I swear, the people who are all like 'omg, you can give the baby away, you don't have to murder it, geeze!'. It's not like giving away a puppy or a pair of shoes, ffs.

George Carlin got it right the first time: These people like the idea of preserving life but won't do a damn thing to help it once it's born. There is very, very little support for young mothers who give up their kids for adoption, let alone for the ones who decide to keep them.

Can't... breathe... hypocrisy is crushing me...

Pel is back! Yay!

And the male deserves to have a say in this how? Because he had an orgasm? Hardly an equal trade off when you consider the woman has something living inside her body for the better half of a year. Said thing completely changes the structure of said woman's body, can have negative impacts on her health (both mentally and physically), and can put her out of work for quite some time. That, and once the baby is born she has to take care of it, even if she doesn't want to. Not only can that be insanely stressful on the woman, but it probably won't lead to the best life for the child either.

Well...it's his kid too, but I nevertheless do agree that a woman's say in such a matter should be more weighted than a guy's. Still, the guy shouldn't be a silent doll or something...*I'm not exactly sure if that's what you're implying though...*

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I don't understand where the man IS supposed to stand on the issue, though - if he has no no say in the matter then he should also have no responsibility, but then if a child IS born the man has to pay child support. The mother can choose not to sue for child support, but she has the right to if she wants. So it's clear that the father is legally and financially responsible, however he has no say whatsoever in whether it's born? That seems unbalanced somehow.

I must say I have to agree with this. A father has to raise up a child too (or at least he should, although some refuse to). But at least he has to pay for it. Its a difficult situation, it seems unjust to force the mother to have the child, but it also seems unjust to force the father to pay for the child without the ability to refuse to do it.

Really not easy to be fair to both parents

Just because the father has little physical connection with the fetus doesn't mean he shouldn't have a say. However, I reckon it is far easier to give rights to the mother anyway.

I'm all for breaking a bad law, but I don't see much progress from breaking a good law just because you see another injustice taking place.

Originally Posted by Pelagias

These people like the idea of preserving life but won't do a damn thing to help it once it's born. There is very, very little support for young mothers who give up their kids for adoption, let alone for the ones who decide to keep them.

That's the ironic problem with Conservatives; their social justice stances ultimately run into the massive wall of them being staunchly opposed to welfare.

Originally Posted by John

It is not even human.

Meh, we've had our discussions about why in elementary terms it is no less human than we are (and therefore arguably a "person" also given the vagueness of the term). It's only less developed, which I could say for an infant as well. It still respires (all living things respire), still processes energy, still grows and develops, etc. It lacks brain function, sure. But I staunchly believe that any kind of exclusive criteria for human beings that is used to deprive them of the same basic rights (life being the most basic of all rights) as those of another kind violates constitutional law. So regardless of the merits, it's still wrong.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

Meh, we've had our discussions about why in elementary terms it is no less human than we are (and therefore arguably a "person" also given the vagueness of the term). It's only less developed, which I could say for an infant as well.

Then sperm should count as persons too.

Originally Posted by fratey

Then sperm should count as persons too.

No it can't...It doesn't have enough chromosomes.

Originally Posted by John

So...women should be punished for having sex?

Like in gambling, a smart person will never risk what they are unwilling to lose. If you have unprotected sex, or use a broken condom, or whatever, there is a high risk you will get pregnant. If you cannot accept that risk, you might want to reconsider having sex.

Mostly because men don't have to live with a parasite threatening their well-being for nine months, at the end of which it may kill them.

Oh, so a human fetus is now compared with having a tick on your arm? I guess that does explain a few things about why abortion is so common.

By the way, with modern medicine, the odds of being killed during childbirth is likely around 1 in 5000 at minimum. Its not the 1700s anymore.

Originally Posted by Spearhead

But what I have trouble with is the whole argument they have for pro-life; that none should get an abortion no matter what.

I can speak only for myself, but under certain circumstances abortion is needed. It just shouldn't be used frivilously. A persons attitude to abortion should be akin to deciding to amputate a finger, not taking a tylonol to get rid of a headache.

And why should only the woman be punished for sex? You note that these arguments never say "some 15 year old guy who couldn't keep his pants on", it's always the woman's fault for getting pregnant, and it's always her who should suffer for it.

The woman shouldn't be the only one punished, but unfortunantly (with how most single fathers treat child support) thats what usually happens.

Originally Posted by fratey

I suggest you read this.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.c...ro-lifers.html

Adoption is obviously a better option for the child. It probably would cause the mother distress, and I sympathise.


On the flip side of the mans part in the abortion thing: what if the man forces the woman to have an abortion when she wants to keep the child? For example, a friend of mine threatened to break up with his girlfriend if she didn't have an abortion. He (probably correctly) believed no one else would want to date him if other girls found out he got a girl pregnant. Meanwhile, his girlfriend wanted the baby, and was torn apart when he pressured her to abort it. She ended up aborting it because he has been her only boyfriend since middleschool and she didn't think she could break up with him. Just some food for thought.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

No it can't...It doesn't have enough chromosomes.

So? I'm sure you are aware of how many chromosomes someone with Downs have. Aren't they human?

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Adoption is obviously a better option for the child.

No, not obviously. There's extremely many factors into this - in all cases, it isn't the better option for the child.

I don't even get why this is still an argment..

It's the woman's choice. It's her body that's being subjected to the parasite, so her say is the ultimatum.

Originally Posted by Sir Calibur

I don't even get why this is still an argment..

It's the woman's choice. It's her body that's being subjected to the parasite, so her say is the ultimatum.

I think the problem for many people is that since it is nearly a born baby, killing it is similar to a killing a newborn.

Originally Posted by fratey

There's extremely many factors into this - in all cases, it isn't the better option for the child.

Wait a minuet. Being killed is a better option than growing up under tha care of adopted parents? Your gonna have to explain that one to me.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Wait a minuet. Being killed is a better option than growing up under tha care of adopted parents? Your gonna have to explain that one to me.

Not having to suffer a bad childhood is better for someone who never had the chance to live yet.