Pretty much same. Unless a woman decides to use it as an alternative to birth control or its after a certain point. If you don't want an abortion don't have one, just like you don't have to get circumsized and you domt have to have a gay wedding. You may not agree with it, but it's none of your business if others do.
that's a baby...doesn't make it right but abortion is a choice by an adult or in some cases a child with an opinion. Not all abortion is the option of the mother sometimes its forced by some person who doesn't want a child.
But if you are of the opinion that the fetus is a human being, what good person would just sit by and allow murder because "it's none of my business"?
Your argument makes sense from your perspective. But not from theirs. That's why everyone has such a hard time getting along. There's no empathy.
Not trying to start an argument at all, but that's really interesting. How so?
5
deleted
· 7 years ago
Like some sort of official document saying that the man says "I agree with my wife and I want the baby to be aborted"
And if the woman aborts the baby without consent, the man should be informed and the woman should be fined.
As for vice versa, like if the man rapes the woman and a baby is made, the woman should be able to get an abortion, free of cost. Rape has to at least have 1 court date passed or nearby.
Or if the baby is somehow obtained against the male's will, the woman would have no say in the matter and it's up to the man.
If aforementioned baby is born anyways, the father is relieved of child support and any other costs, but could still visit the child as long as no abuse is going on.
How about no? It's her body and if she's not willing to carry it for 9 months, have hormonal swings and several hours of extreme pain for it, she shouldn't have to. If she isn't ready to carry the baby she won't have to. A guy might want to become a father but he has no say over her body in any goddamned way. If he wants a baby he can adopt one. Men can this way force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do, you're breaking a human right, autonomy, by doing so. More importantly is that if she really doesn't want it, she'll find a way to get rid of it and those ways are fucking dangerous.
That's true. But as a young woman, I think it's a shitty thing to have an abortion without at least telling the father first.
5
deleted
· 7 years ago
"a guy might want to become a father but he has no control over her body in any goddamn way"
Control!? I said the man should the ability to consent to abort or not abort the baby. It's not like the woman is getting puppeteered here.
"if she isn't ready to carry the baby she won't have to"
You're supposed to plan this shit and read up on pregnancy before you get pregnant.
"Men this way can force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do, you're breaking a human right, autonomy, by doing so."
Firstly, runon sentence with a bunch of commas. Secondly, men cannot say a word or even ask for the abortion to be stopped, and that is silence of freedom of speech.
"more importantly is that if she doesn't want it, she'll find a way to get rid of it"
And that ruins the trust to could've been built between the couple and she should be fined.
"If he wants a baby he can adopt one"
Don't fucking tell me that I can't want to see and hold my natural offspring just
(cont)
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
because a woman doesn't want to have one. I understand she goes through great amounts of pain, but shouldn't she at least try to go through that pain for me?
Well, no? She doesn't want the baby. Why should she have to carry it for nine months just because you want it? Yes, it's sad, but that's the way things are
7
deleted
· 7 years ago
Just like how failing marriages work?
"Oh I no longer love you I want half your shit. Oh, you don't want to? Too fucking you have to pay alimony and I won't let you see the kids so you'll have to pay child support plus I'm getting the house good luck"
I read it, and you can't really compare a failing marriage to pregnancy. I can understand where you're coming from, and I agreed with your earlier points, but you can't make a woman go through the stress of pregnancy and labour just because you want the baby.
6
deleted
· 7 years ago
I'm not going to.
I'm going wait until the prep is done, then ask her.
If she wants an abortion, I just want to be heard and not ignored.
Why does your desire to be heard trump her bodily autonomy?
Like, I get it - if you're in a committed relationship and she doesn't include you in the conversation, that would sting. But ultimately - and more importantly, legally - you get no rights, and that's as it should be. Trying to make laws to force women to do "the decent thing", and risking their bodily autonomy to protect your feelings, is not on.
Guest he just said he wouldn't force them. If I was considering an abortion, I would definitely consult my partner first. It's their child too. But at the end of the day, it's my decision
1. Sometimes pregnancies happen, condom breaks, birth control fails. 2. Men don't have a final say in whether the abortion happens or not because it is not their body. She does not owe you that pain so no she does not have to go trough that for you. 3.If you make a mans voice in the process of abortion a final say, you give them the control to stop the abortion even tho the woman might want it. 4. Last but not least, if you want to force a woman or girl into a pregnancy she doesn't want the trust you had in that relationship is already broken.
11
deleted
· 7 years ago
OH MY GOD
YOU IDIOTS ARE TAKING MY WORDS AND TWISTING THEM
I SAID THE MAN COULD EITHER GIVE CONSENT OR ENDORSE THE ABORTION
JFC YOU PEOPLE ARE DEMONIZING MEN LIKE EVERY MAN WOULD FORCE AN ABORTION OR FORCE A FUCKING CHILD
God you people say the same shit over and over
I knew a man in South Africa who discovered that his ex-wife had aborted 13 of his children without telling him. It absolutely destroyed him. I've never seen such a strong man cry like that.
He should have a say because they're his kids too. Just because you're not physically carrying them doesn't mean you can't love them.
To all you who say it is not his body it is hers. It's not her life, it's the baby's. So how does the appears and pain on her body trump the LIFE of his. Now I understand that she has to go through immense pain and stress and that sucks, but it is a consequence of your actions. If you decided to go riding a moor cycle without a helmet and your bust your head open, you have to live with those consequences. If you had sex, you have the chance of getting pregnant. It's as simple as that. Everything has a consequence. Live with your decisions. I know the "absence isn't the answer" argument and I know people are going to have sex. But it is the same as anything else. You take the risk, you deal with the consequences. You smoke and develop cancer, you deal with the health issues. You punch a guy in the face and he sues, you face the charges. You text and drive and wreck, you face the injuries. Learn to own up to your mistakes and face reality.
My 2 cents :
- Women should indeed mention pregnancy and plan to abort, but the final decision should always be theirs.
- Men who don't want the child should not pay for it.
- All is about the link between the future mom and the foetus : a woman who wants to be a mom will feel connected to her baby as soon as she knows she's pregnant. A woman who don't want to be a mom will see that like an annoyance to get rid of. End of the story, it's pointless to debate about the frontier between the foetus being human or just a batch of cells.
- FYI, about 20-25% of the pregnancies will fail naturally. Yup, that's a lot : most failure won't be even noticed by women, because the body will naturally kill improper foetus.
- And little bonus : don't you think that 7 billions are enough ? Post WWII is over, I think we deserve being less with good lives instead of too numerous with shitty existences.
There's an interesting question -- if a man doesn't have the right to have a say in the abortion, does a woman have the right to go after him for support payments if she keeps the child?
Kinda seems like the man gets screwed over either way.
I feel it should depend on the situation as well. Like if it was a one night stand and you both consented to sex ( let's say unprotected in this case ) then you shouldn't have to make the guy pay child support if he doesn't get a say.
But if they were a couple, and he said no to the abortion, then he should pay, or if it was sex under false pretenses ( basically someone said they were using protection and was not ) then whoever was the victim shouldn't have to pay and the liar can legally be charged with rape and go to jail.
Im pro-life but I am also pro-choice. If you were raped or something similar you shouldn't have to live with the everyday reminder that you were raped. On the same token, if you are irresponsible and chose to have unprotected sex I believe you should be forced to deal with your decision to be ignorant.
@robbouche But is that always the best way though? What if the parents doesn't have jobs or any way to support the child, should they still be forced to have the child just to "learn them a lesson" ?
Right? And what about the man? Doesnt he need to "learn a lesson"? He can just walk away and be done with it.the woman cant, why is she the one who has to suffer?
I don't even know what I lean towards, but I think it's pro-life.
If I were to be horribly raped today and by some miracle survive, then find out I'm pregnant. No. I don't want this baby. At all. But that doesn't mean that I think a baby should have to suffer the consequences of my pain (that's a poor choice of words--I don't think they should have to pay the price of death because I don't want to see my rapists face for the rest of my life. I am NOT saying an aborted baby feels pain--at least before the development of the nervous system). Yes, pregnancy is a HUGE weight, and a HUGE price to pay, but for the selflessness not selfishness. With the exception of this baby could kill me, or my body will kill it anyway. Or this baby will have minimal chances of actual survival or in cases of incest. I think a body is more than just a clump of cells but less than fetal development (that sounds weird) why should they pay for someone else's, and not necessarily my, mistakes?
I'm thinking more about the baby. Sure, when they finally give birth to the forced child, most people would still love it with all their heart, but will they be prepared for it if they were forced to have it?
Well I mean ... Most people who grow up in poverty tend to either stay in poverty or become criminals ... So either being gotten rid of before there is a consciousness or forced to grow up in a neglectful poor home where there's a major negative cycle ?
I mean technically, a foetus is a parasite and not a human being. It literally can not live outside. If we could test tube grow them from that stage, I don't know maybe something different but it can't.
And besides, I'm pretty sure making abortion illegal would lead to many actual deaths of women, like real women not just clumps of cells deposited into their vagina.
And I think that mostly because that is sorta exactly what used to happen.
All a fetus needs to survive are a suitable environment and the necessary nutrition. If it has that, it doesn't need the mother. Those are the same needs all organisms, all humans, have.
One day we will have medical technology to support fetal development with no pregnancy involved at all. Does the definition of a human life change at that point?
Okay so I'll just put my brand new premie baby out in the park with a basket of apples
You said it doesn't need me, right ?
What the fuck was your point ?
That it doesn't explicitly need YOU. It just needs safety and nutrients. If it can get them from somewhere else, that works just as well.
If you put a 6-month old out in the park with a basket of apples, it would die too. btw.
You still haven't actually made a point. Currently, due to modern science and medicine, the only situation in which a fetus can get the suitable environment and necessary nutrition is inside a womb. You freaking donkey badger.
Which is, now correct me if I'm wrong, exactly what you and I have both been saying.
So, not to beat a dead horse, what exactly was your point?
If you are saying abortion should be illegal if and when we discover a way to safely grow a baby outside the womb. Then by all means make it illegal if and when you pro life people decide that you will first pay for all the baby growing treatment and secondly adopt all the already parentless children.
My point is that the definition of a human life should not be dependent on factors outside of itself, such as whether we have the technology to perform an abortion, or the technology to make pregnancy (and abortion) redundant.
When that tech becomes available, the pro-choice argument loses a great deal of its footing.
But since the pro-life argument is centered more on the independent rights of the child, it shouldn't matter whether the tech actually exists yet or not -- the reasoning behind it is enough. If abortion should be made illegal then, it's no stretch at all to argue that it should be made illegal now. The only argument against that logic must assert that ethics can be relative, and it's easy to see why people may be inclined to object.
I love how people say "The fetus has rights!" but don't stop and think about the woman and her's. If a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry her rapist's seed? If her father is doing the raping, should she be forced to give birth to her brother? If having the pregnancy could kill the woman, should she be forced to die so that the baby may live? And what if the baby has a medical condition that will cause it to be born early, suffer it's entire life, and die within days of birth? Should we force a mother (and father) to endure that sort of horror? Not all women who seek abortions are sluts who don't want to deal with a crying baby while they try to go clubbing. Many have stories to share that should give us pause and and think about their situations and what led them to that point. They're not evil for wanting to abort the fetus. They just want to bring life into this world on their own terms, and not have some 70-year-old man in the state house tell them when or how.
Guest, the rape situation is the absolutely most stickiest topic I think in the abortion debate. Because on one hand, the survivor is absolutely mentally physically etc. traumatized and now has to deal with he potential of at least another 9 months of a different type of pain. On the other hand, a baby is a baby, what did they ever do to ask for this? They just happen to show up because of a terrible crime and now they never get to have a say? They have to be eliminated because of someone else's (NOT THE VICTIM'S) wrong? That's not fair. Especially when if/they reach the point of heartbeat/nervous system development.
But maybe also the victim has passed the date of those developments, and won't report her rape or pregnancy out of fear. Maybe she still doesn't want this baby. That's where I'm especially stuck anyway.
So should we deny women the option of having an abortion if they are raped? The needs of the woman should always be addressed first when it comes to rape and abortion. The woman didn't asked to be raped and she shouldn't be asked to carry a pregnancy to full term if she doesn't want the baby.
I'm reading that in a very non-accusatory tone, but that's what I mean. Rape abortion is a super sticky topic for me. Do we give her the choice because it is "her" body that she would be rid of? Or do we tell her, in those terrible awful prerequisite abortion videos, that "you were raped, and now another innocent life is going to be taken away"?
Also: from an unknowing position, I imagine her carrying of a baby would be immensely difficult, her body has just experienced extreme trauma, and I think I've heard of occasions where holding a baby full term is difficult for some rape survivors because of all the damage they've suffered down there.
And... maybe this sounds immature, but asking a pregnant rape victim why they want this abortion... maybe me, personally could take most answers: I don't trust the state. I don't want to deal with him ever again, etc.
but I don't think I could ever handle the answer "because I will hate this baby" based solely on the fact you hate him.
Luckily, I don't run that piece of legislature.
Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons and possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies....link to follow
No person should have a say in what a woman does with her body. That being said, people would rather be "pro-life" or at least think they are. I consider them "pro-birth" bc they demand for the birth of children whose mother is considering abortion but they don't see ahead of that. They don't see, or choose not to, the struggles & stress a child puts on a family that is living paycheck to paycheck or on welfare. They'd rather be "pro-life" and protest an abortion clinic rather than look into organizations that help struggling families in need. Not sure if everyone will agree but these are my two cents
I would like to add that if women were denied abortions then that means that a corpse would have more right to their body than them. You legally aren't allowed to take organs from a dead person unless they were an organ donor or concented before their passing. So if you're going to give something not fully formed a trump on the person who's body it actually is, something is seriously wrong.
Also, I'd like to point out that I've also seen plenty of people who are pro-lifers but say that welfare and other social service type programs need to be cut because they don't want their taxes going to " lazy people " ( while honestly there are PLENTY of people who abuse the system, if you're gonna force people to have a kid you damn better help since you think you get to make the decision for them )
@brianna_22 I wish I could like this comment more than once, I couldn't agree more. I'd also like to expand on what @diyrogue has already said, which is that the same people who are pro-life (or pro-birth as you said which is a much more fitting name) are very often against social security programs and in general against paying more taxes to help other people because "they're just lazy slackers!" Because like, which is it? Money or life? Would they force a woman to have a baby but then give the woman no money to keep that baby alive and let it starve? Because that is a much worse fate than a painless abortion (at an appropriate stage of pregnancy of course). And even if that child would be born from a woman who was just plain careless, slept around, is addicted to drugs etc. (basically what pro-lifers imagine every woman who has an abortion is like), so what? The more reasons to abort it! The baby would have a horrible and probably short life, isn't painless abortion better?
Out of curiosity,
What happens to the argument when you are pro life/pro birth AND you support these welfare programs or planned parenthood-esque programs?
What if we support that that baby go for adoption or foster care?
Neither of us said ALL pro lifers are, we say some. And the point was that if there are pro life people who hold those views, they need to choose which is more important to them because those views are very conflicting.
And yes there are the options of adoption and foster care but adoption is expensive and takes years while many people only foster foster homes children to get the money and treat them horribly, and that still puts the potential life of a fetus ABOVE that of a fully grown woman if you deny her the right to her body, just to put the child in a system that will most likely leave them without parents if they aren't fully adopted before a certain age.
I just don't see where "the right to her body" is being denied. If she was raped, that's a valid argument. But if it was consensual, pregnancy is a completely natural consequence.
It doesn't make sense to me that rights should supercede nature itself.
Once more I agree with @diyrogue. Firstly, saying we don't even consider the possibility is far fetched because we never said that ALL pro-lifers are like that. Furthermore, foster homes and foster care are far from perfect. Better than living with parents who don't have the money to feed you but in many cases not much better. And while you two may support these welfare programs (which is quite noble of you and I respect you for it), there's a reason why we wrote "plenty" and "often", because people like you are unfortunately a minority in the pro-life movement, which in my experience consists mostly of far right-wing Bible-thumping nuts whose only news source is InfoWars. (note: my experience does not equal the truth and yours may differ in which case I'd love for you to share it, because experiences are highly subjective and what I just wrote doesn't prove me right or prove you wrong, it's just my experience)
Edit: @supernovamike What about failed contraceptives?
I don't really see why that should be a special case. If you're mature enough to be using contraceptives, you should be mature enough to know that they do not guarantee that you won't get pregnant. If you're willing to take the risk, I don't see why you have the right to opt out if the dice roll isn't in your favor.
Expanding on that logic, should a victim of malaria just deal with dying when their vaccine fails while they're on vacation in an exotic country? Or should they maybe never ever visit an exotic country unless they're ready to die? Or should they seek further medical help? Not a perfect analogy but you see where I'm going with this, right?
I see where you're going with this, and although pregnancy itself is a health hazard... I have to disagree. Part of being an intelligent sexually active partner is recognizing the potential risks. If you get pregnant on your contraceptive or because your form of birth control failed, it was a risk you took if we have to keep playing analogies, then that's like gambling your entire savings in a casino. You either walk away having had a good time, or you walk out facing the consequences of your actions.
Because abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
Why not? Sure if you get an abortion every few months it's totally wrong and twisted, but the best contraceptives promise a 99.8% chance of not getting pregnant. If you do get pregnant that one time out of 400 or so, why not? Also morning after pills are by many people recognized as mini-abortion, should those be outlawed?
As long as you do it at an early enough stage when it's not a baby yet but a pile of goo, I don't see anything wrong. At early stages the foetus doesn't feel pain, in fact it doesn't feel anything, it's on the same level as a bacterium. When it grows further and develops a nervous system, then it would be wrong to abort it, but that's when it's illegal, too. Also, I can totally get behind your argument about consequences of actions, but would you really want a baby to grow up in a family where its parents are either too young or too careless to understand basic action and consequence? Forcing birth would be punishing the baby for the wrongdoings of its parents.
Biologically speaking as soon as the sperm and egg Connect and begin to produce cells, the fetus is a human being. Molecularly it is the same comparison as a wood box to a shelf. Look different but are both wood. And biologically it is a living thing because it meets the five characteristics of life. I don't feel like reposting those characteristics as I have posted it in a different comment on this picture but if you want to for simple searching reason I will. Just let me know.
@ewqua People still see Morning after pills that way? Smh the sex Ed system we have--well they probably don't even teach about that.and yeah, I agree. Before a certain point, a fetus is just a bundle of unfeeling cells. An abortion during that time is of nearly no matter of importance. And I wouldn't want a baby to end up in a bad environment, the first example that comes to mind is teen pregnancy usually ends up with a teen pregnancy. And even if the decision ended up with putting baby in foster or adoption system, the state is very poor and I'll-resources to do any good for tha kid.
So on one hand, kill a future life.
On the other hand, set baby up for almost absolute failure when they're born into the wrong hands.
In my opinion, I may seem heartless, but even if, biologically, the baby can feel what is happening, I believe that if an abortion is necessary, the parents should still go through with it. If they are going to be born into a world that isn't safe for them and would harm them, or if they have a crippling illness or defect, it is better to... Put them down. Spare them, the parents, and the family the pain
This is even more heartless, but when people argue that you can't kill it because it is a living being, so is an ant, a fly, a mosquito, or other things. At such an early stage of pregnancy, even if it has feelings, it is either not or barely conscious and doesn't have very much feelings. If the abortion is necessary, the fact that it is a "living thing" shouldn't stop someone
I've been away for the weekend but wow, what a lenghty conversation this has become. I'm very proud of y'all for not insulting anyone and just having a civil discussion, it happened to me way too many times that people on the internet just called me stupid without elaborating, that's why I'm so glad that this discussion is so civil and polite even though there's such a wide range of opinions.
But yeah, basically my view is that as long as the foetus can't feel pain, it's okay to abort it. It's just a bunch of cells at that point. When it evolves a nervous system, then it's wrong to abort it, but as I mentioned before that's when it's also illegal. I think the laws we have now got it right. Also, @kibblesmydog, I think that what you're saying is perfectly logical. The fact that you had to mention that it's "heartless" to say such a logical thing only shows how much do most pro-lifers like to play the emotion card to get to you. Don't be ashamed of your opinions!
I know that feeling and I understand that. Still, I agree with you and I think it's not heartless to think logically. It just means you value facts above emotions which is quite rare nowadays.
I don't know where my life will bring me in the future, but now I am pro-life.
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Pro-life_answers
In my spare time I work in an association which supports difficult pregnancies and I think this is the only way to deal with this issue: support the mothers and not leave them alone. Some people who come to us are so misinformed it's crazy. They don't see another way. But THERE IS. It's easy to say "I'm pro life", but do you know the struggle that's behind taking care of a newborn? That's where we can make a huge difference in the way this world sees life. It's not a burden, it's a step forward. Over and out.
You got some downvotes, probably because most people including me on this website are pro-choice. We may disagree in that respect but I truly appreciate that you do something like this for many confused and scared mothers and that you try to make a difference in the world.
Yeah, like @ewqua said. It's nice seeing a pro life argument in a respectful tone about helping the mother than someone going on about killing babies. It actually helps people and calms them.
Thanks a lot for your appreciation, you too sound quite calm debaters! I understand this is a thorny issue and that the pro-life movement often uses an aggressive tone when explaining their reasons, making it very hard for other people - potential mothers included - to listen and discuss successfully. If we want to find a solution, screaming is most certainly not the way. Plus, I'm convinced that everyone can have their opinion, that's for sure, but when we discuss we all need to be open-minded, well-informed... and also experienced, if possible. Experience is always a good source of information.
I agree, and still don't understand why so many people think it's wrong
2Reply
deleted
· 7 years ago
I really do not like Ben Shapiro for obvious reasons but he made a good point when he said "Your body your choice? That baby never had a choice what about its body its choice, you never gave it that choice because you were irresponsible".
deleted
· 7 years ago
You don't like Ben Shapiro?
Ahh man that dude is lit af
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
No he is not. He's whiny and thinks he makes sense a lot sometimes like Milo, but I like Milo even though he's a shitstain i can't help but like him.
This entire comment section keeps reminding me of George Carlins stand up. "They want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers"
The pro life argument would have more merrit in my opinion if 1) they cared about the entire life not just birthing the baby and telling the mom/dad whomever to figure it out and fuck off
2) pre natal care, shots and general doctor related stuff wasn't so exspensive.
3) the economy was nice enough to afford proper raising of the child, ie. Stay at home parent or someone who takes care of the kid while the parent (s) work, and having enough time to spend with the baby as well (instead of working 40+ hours, work maybe 32? Bonding with the kid and the like)
And finally 4) if we weren't so insanely over populated.
4
deleted
· 7 years ago
I disagree with s and 4. But ither than that 100% correct. Because the idiots who are the face of this movement are assholes, stuck up and have life handed to them on a silver platter most of the time. I wish I could butt em out of the pro life but I cant. I care about all the things except for s and 4.
Basically, they're saying trying to reduce abortion to one line: "it's a living being" isn't going to help you and you aren't going to stop abortion like this. The real reason is because of faulty sex ed and how some schools gloss over it
I fought this shiz before ill do it again. Abortion is practically the ability to legally kill another human being. Not only are you stripping ones rights away but you are pretty much dehumanizing another living creature. And if you look up the scientific definition of a living creature you will see the fetus has all but reproduction which some grown humans cant do anyways. PLEASE DONT FING DOWNVOTE YOU CAN ARGUE BUT I CANT AFFORD ANOTHER BLOCK ON COMMENTS
Unless there is a significant risk to either the mother or babies health they don't allow abortions after a point where the fetus is scientifically a baby.
I just fail to see in what way the fetus lacks the title of human. First off it is a living creature by scientific terms. Second it is a human because it is going to be a human in the future and im unaware of people being able to switch species. It can also feel emotions and can feel pain 6 weeks in and can have basics thoughts as well. Im sorry but it sure as heck looks like a human to me. With that i can say you are literally justifying the killing of other human beings by dehumanizing them. The funny part is that sounds very similar in history.
There are some states that have initiated a heartbeat law. Im not sure how it works exactly, I haven't done any research on it yet. Correction its called the heartbeat bill and it makes abortions illegal if a heartbeat is able to be heard.
It will be a person in the future, but at the time of the abortion it isn't. And there isn't any proof that they can feel pain when abortions occur.
Like I said before, if a woman wants an abortion, then she's entitled to one as long as she's not using it as a form of contraception.
"Unless there is a significant risk to either the mother or babies health they don't allow abortions after a point where the fetus is scientifically a baby."
So... birth, then?
"I just fail to see in what way the fetus lacks the title of human. First off it is a living creature by scientific terms. Second it is a human because it is going to be a human in the future and im unaware of people being able to switch species. It can also feel emotions and can feel pain 6 weeks in and can have basics thoughts as well. Im sorry but it sure as heck looks like a human to me. With that i can say you are literally justifying the killing of other human beings by dehumanizing them. The funny part is that sounds very similar in history."
The point isn't "a fetus isn't human". The point is that a fetus is unable to survive without its host, and the host's existing, self-sustaining life trumps the fetus's potential for life.
Ok so you are basically killing a human because it is not self sufficient. Do you kill the physically handicapped and the mentally feeble too. that is basically what you said. As for sincere 8 weeks in the baby responds to touch actually so there is evidence it can feel things. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/ read that. Now the issue with the women rights is you are putting one human being above another human being it shouldn't be that way. If the women is responsible for the baby in any way shape or form it is her job to take care of the baby. Just because you got careless does not mean you get to kill another human being.
" Ok so you are basically killing a human because it is not self sufficient. Do you kill the physically handicapped and the mentally feeble too. "
It usually depends on how handicapped. Like you wouldn't do it to someone who broke their leg but if someone was in a vegitative coma you probably would.
" Now the issue with the women rights is you are putting one human being above another human being it shouldn't be that way. "
And by forcing the woman to have the baby you are putting their " life " over the woman's, so that point kind of fails. If you put something that lacks most conciousness above a fully grown woman, and in turn giving a corpse more bodily autonomy than a corpse, that's kind of fucked.
You are not putting the baby's life above the woman's life thought. you're putting the baby's life above the women's pain and hormones. That's a good trade if you are a decent human being. And baby's do have consciousness.
A baby shouldn't be a punishment, though. Just because a woman had sex does not mean she should be subject to her body changing for years. It doesn't just affect the nine months she carries the baby. And even then, if she doesn't want the baby it's just going to be put into a system because we have WAY too many kids in foster care and waiting to be adopted than is in demand. And after a certain point kids are more than likely not going to be adopted and will stay orphans until they are legally an adult and can leave. And that's fucks with you if you grew up pretty much by yourself.
Plus, some people have the baby because they were forced to and you end up with crack babies and kids being heavily neglected and growing up in a life of crime. That happens A LOT and way more than it should.
Here is my issue the women chooses to have sex knowing the what happens after if she chooses to have sex she is responsible if she becomes pregnant. I also cant believe you are justifying the murder of another human being simply because it puts the women through some pain boo hoo. I am also gonna say a women does not have a right to be pain free while another human does have the right to live. Honestly you are pretty much talking like a nazi. You are dehumanizing another human in order to justify the killing of it. Its not fair you get to take someones chance to live life because you had sex and you didnt want to deal with the consequence. If they are raped ok i understand but honestly most cases are their fault. Most people getting abortions are not being raped or have a serious risk. The whole point of the argument is you are killing another human and the sad part is that is ok for you.
Most pro choicers don't consider a fetus a human until a certain point, so we don't view it as killing someone.
And you are literally changing a woman's biology to force her to have a child. YES a child is a possibility of sex but here's the thing: abortions are going to happen. Just like teens having sex, it's going to happen whether you like it or not. But you can prepare people and give them a safe alternative to help them out, rather than them doing something EXTREMELY risky because you disagree with it altogether. Without safe government abortions women are going to be getting back alley ones with coat hangers again which gets them killed or having the babies and leaving them in dumpsters or flooding the child care systems. It's better to have a safe alternative no matter if you don't like it, it saves WAY more lives.
It does not save more lives. It kills more lives but makes your conscience feel better because you think it's being done "safer" and it keeps the kids out of the system which means you don't have to support them anymore. The problem isn't that there are too many kids in the system. The problem is that there are too many people that are openly having sex without thinking of the consequences. The problem is that the "safe" way revolves around ending a life. And yes it is a life. The biological five characteristics of a life 1. They are made of organized cells (check) 2. They obtain and use energy (check) 3. They grow and develop (check) 4.They reproduce (check) 5. They respond to their environment (check) ...
Not to mention they are still molecularly made up the same way as a full growth adult. A steel rod and a can of food look different but are still made of steel. Also, according to
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/
11.6% of abortions are committed by teenagers. That means the 88.4% of abortions are not teenage abortions so the argument about teenagers having sex 1. Again need to think of consequences 2. The majority of abortions are not even committed for this reason.
ima be honest idgaf about the women who choose risky operations. Here is the thing i care about the fetus more because it does not have a choice yet. It is a human being and i have yet to see someone show me otherwise. I dont care about pro lifers so if you dont think its human tell me why. Yet again just because teens have sex does not put them above the consequence as ilikemoderation said people will smoke and get lung cancer but they knew what the risk was. Im also guessing you are talking about a very small minority of people using coat hangers not having a safe option will push off many of the people looking for one.
you don't remember me but I remember you
how've you been
Your argument makes sense from your perspective. But not from theirs. That's why everyone has such a hard time getting along. There's no empathy.
*gets popcorn*
And if the woman aborts the baby without consent, the man should be informed and the woman should be fined.
As for vice versa, like if the man rapes the woman and a baby is made, the woman should be able to get an abortion, free of cost. Rape has to at least have 1 court date passed or nearby.
Or if the baby is somehow obtained against the male's will, the woman would have no say in the matter and it's up to the man.
If aforementioned baby is born anyways, the father is relieved of child support and any other costs, but could still visit the child as long as no abuse is going on.
Control!? I said the man should the ability to consent to abort or not abort the baby. It's not like the woman is getting puppeteered here.
"if she isn't ready to carry the baby she won't have to"
You're supposed to plan this shit and read up on pregnancy before you get pregnant.
"Men this way can force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do, you're breaking a human right, autonomy, by doing so."
Firstly, runon sentence with a bunch of commas. Secondly, men cannot say a word or even ask for the abortion to be stopped, and that is silence of freedom of speech.
"more importantly is that if she doesn't want it, she'll find a way to get rid of it"
And that ruins the trust to could've been built between the couple and she should be fined.
"If he wants a baby he can adopt one"
Don't fucking tell me that I can't want to see and hold my natural offspring just
(cont)
"Oh I no longer love you I want half your shit. Oh, you don't want to? Too fucking you have to pay alimony and I won't let you see the kids so you'll have to pay child support plus I'm getting the house good luck"
It serves a purpose if you actually read the damn thing
I'm going wait until the prep is done, then ask her.
If she wants an abortion, I just want to be heard and not ignored.
Like, I get it - if you're in a committed relationship and she doesn't include you in the conversation, that would sting. But ultimately - and more importantly, legally - you get no rights, and that's as it should be. Trying to make laws to force women to do "the decent thing", and risking their bodily autonomy to protect your feelings, is not on.
YOU IDIOTS ARE TAKING MY WORDS AND TWISTING THEM
I SAID THE MAN COULD EITHER GIVE CONSENT OR ENDORSE THE ABORTION
JFC YOU PEOPLE ARE DEMONIZING MEN LIKE EVERY MAN WOULD FORCE AN ABORTION OR FORCE A FUCKING CHILD
God you people say the same shit over and over
He should have a say because they're his kids too. Just because you're not physically carrying them doesn't mean you can't love them.
- Women should indeed mention pregnancy and plan to abort, but the final decision should always be theirs.
- Men who don't want the child should not pay for it.
- All is about the link between the future mom and the foetus : a woman who wants to be a mom will feel connected to her baby as soon as she knows she's pregnant. A woman who don't want to be a mom will see that like an annoyance to get rid of. End of the story, it's pointless to debate about the frontier between the foetus being human or just a batch of cells.
- FYI, about 20-25% of the pregnancies will fail naturally. Yup, that's a lot : most failure won't be even noticed by women, because the body will naturally kill improper foetus.
- And little bonus : don't you think that 7 billions are enough ? Post WWII is over, I think we deserve being less with good lives instead of too numerous with shitty existences.
Kinda seems like the man gets screwed over either way.
But if they were a couple, and he said no to the abortion, then he should pay, or if it was sex under false pretenses ( basically someone said they were using protection and was not ) then whoever was the victim shouldn't have to pay and the liar can legally be charged with rape and go to jail.
If I were to be horribly raped today and by some miracle survive, then find out I'm pregnant. No. I don't want this baby. At all. But that doesn't mean that I think a baby should have to suffer the consequences of my pain (that's a poor choice of words--I don't think they should have to pay the price of death because I don't want to see my rapists face for the rest of my life. I am NOT saying an aborted baby feels pain--at least before the development of the nervous system). Yes, pregnancy is a HUGE weight, and a HUGE price to pay, but for the selflessness not selfishness. With the exception of this baby could kill me, or my body will kill it anyway. Or this baby will have minimal chances of actual survival or in cases of incest. I think a body is more than just a clump of cells but less than fetal development (that sounds weird) why should they pay for someone else's, and not necessarily my, mistakes?
Is growing up in poverty worse than not growing up at all?
And besides, I'm pretty sure making abortion illegal would lead to many actual deaths of women, like real women not just clumps of cells deposited into their vagina.
And I think that mostly because that is sorta exactly what used to happen.
One day we will have medical technology to support fetal development with no pregnancy involved at all. Does the definition of a human life change at that point?
You said it doesn't need me, right ?
What the fuck was your point ?
If you put a 6-month old out in the park with a basket of apples, it would die too. btw.
Which is, now correct me if I'm wrong, exactly what you and I have both been saying.
So, not to beat a dead horse, what exactly was your point?
If you are saying abortion should be illegal if and when we discover a way to safely grow a baby outside the womb. Then by all means make it illegal if and when you pro life people decide that you will first pay for all the baby growing treatment and secondly adopt all the already parentless children.
When that tech becomes available, the pro-choice argument loses a great deal of its footing.
But since the pro-life argument is centered more on the independent rights of the child, it shouldn't matter whether the tech actually exists yet or not -- the reasoning behind it is enough. If abortion should be made illegal then, it's no stretch at all to argue that it should be made illegal now. The only argument against that logic must assert that ethics can be relative, and it's easy to see why people may be inclined to object.
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/
in addition the 70-year-old man was elected there democratically by the voting population. women make up %53 of that voting population.
https://voterunlead.org/go-vote/womens-vote/
But maybe also the victim has passed the date of those developments, and won't report her rape or pregnancy out of fear. Maybe she still doesn't want this baby. That's where I'm especially stuck anyway.
Also: from an unknowing position, I imagine her carrying of a baby would be immensely difficult, her body has just experienced extreme trauma, and I think I've heard of occasions where holding a baby full term is difficult for some rape survivors because of all the damage they've suffered down there.
but I don't think I could ever handle the answer "because I will hate this baby" based solely on the fact you hate him.
Luckily, I don't run that piece of legislature.
Also, I'd like to point out that I've also seen plenty of people who are pro-lifers but say that welfare and other social service type programs need to be cut because they don't want their taxes going to " lazy people " ( while honestly there are PLENTY of people who abuse the system, if you're gonna force people to have a kid you damn better help since you think you get to make the decision for them )
What happens to the argument when you are pro life/pro birth AND you support these welfare programs or planned parenthood-esque programs?
What if we support that that baby go for adoption or foster care?
And yes there are the options of adoption and foster care but adoption is expensive and takes years while many people only foster foster homes children to get the money and treat them horribly, and that still puts the potential life of a fetus ABOVE that of a fully grown woman if you deny her the right to her body, just to put the child in a system that will most likely leave them without parents if they aren't fully adopted before a certain age.
It doesn't make sense to me that rights should supercede nature itself.
Edit: @supernovamike What about failed contraceptives?
Because abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
As long as you do it at an early enough stage when it's not a baby yet but a pile of goo, I don't see anything wrong. At early stages the foetus doesn't feel pain, in fact it doesn't feel anything, it's on the same level as a bacterium. When it grows further and develops a nervous system, then it would be wrong to abort it, but that's when it's illegal, too. Also, I can totally get behind your argument about consequences of actions, but would you really want a baby to grow up in a family where its parents are either too young or too careless to understand basic action and consequence? Forcing birth would be punishing the baby for the wrongdoings of its parents.
So on one hand, kill a future life.
On the other hand, set baby up for almost absolute failure when they're born into the wrong hands.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/we-asked-a-botanist-how-sure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302
But yeah, basically my view is that as long as the foetus can't feel pain, it's okay to abort it. It's just a bunch of cells at that point. When it evolves a nervous system, then it's wrong to abort it, but as I mentioned before that's when it's also illegal. I think the laws we have now got it right. Also, @kibblesmydog, I think that what you're saying is perfectly logical. The fact that you had to mention that it's "heartless" to say such a logical thing only shows how much do most pro-lifers like to play the emotion card to get to you. Don't be ashamed of your opinions!
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Pro-life_answers
In my spare time I work in an association which supports difficult pregnancies and I think this is the only way to deal with this issue: support the mothers and not leave them alone. Some people who come to us are so misinformed it's crazy. They don't see another way. But THERE IS. It's easy to say "I'm pro life", but do you know the struggle that's behind taking care of a newborn? That's where we can make a huge difference in the way this world sees life. It's not a burden, it's a step forward. Over and out.
Ahh man that dude is lit af
The pro life argument would have more merrit in my opinion if 1) they cared about the entire life not just birthing the baby and telling the mom/dad whomever to figure it out and fuck off
2) pre natal care, shots and general doctor related stuff wasn't so exspensive.
3) the economy was nice enough to afford proper raising of the child, ie. Stay at home parent or someone who takes care of the kid while the parent (s) work, and having enough time to spend with the baby as well (instead of working 40+ hours, work maybe 32? Bonding with the kid and the like)
And finally 4) if we weren't so insanely over populated.
=]
EDIT: This is the George Carlin skit by the way. Super funny, figured it would lighten up the post a bit.
I'm just going to leave this here
It kinda warmed my heart that some pro life people view it this way
Like I said before, if a woman wants an abortion, then she's entitled to one as long as she's not using it as a form of contraception.
So... birth, then?
"I just fail to see in what way the fetus lacks the title of human. First off it is a living creature by scientific terms. Second it is a human because it is going to be a human in the future and im unaware of people being able to switch species. It can also feel emotions and can feel pain 6 weeks in and can have basics thoughts as well. Im sorry but it sure as heck looks like a human to me. With that i can say you are literally justifying the killing of other human beings by dehumanizing them. The funny part is that sounds very similar in history."
The point isn't "a fetus isn't human". The point is that a fetus is unable to survive without its host, and the host's existing, self-sustaining life trumps the fetus's potential for life.
It usually depends on how handicapped. Like you wouldn't do it to someone who broke their leg but if someone was in a vegitative coma you probably would.
" Now the issue with the women rights is you are putting one human being above another human being it shouldn't be that way. "
And by forcing the woman to have the baby you are putting their " life " over the woman's, so that point kind of fails. If you put something that lacks most conciousness above a fully grown woman, and in turn giving a corpse more bodily autonomy than a corpse, that's kind of fucked.
Plus, some people have the baby because they were forced to and you end up with crack babies and kids being heavily neglected and growing up in a life of crime. That happens A LOT and way more than it should.
And you are literally changing a woman's biology to force her to have a child. YES a child is a possibility of sex but here's the thing: abortions are going to happen. Just like teens having sex, it's going to happen whether you like it or not. But you can prepare people and give them a safe alternative to help them out, rather than them doing something EXTREMELY risky because you disagree with it altogether. Without safe government abortions women are going to be getting back alley ones with coat hangers again which gets them killed or having the babies and leaving them in dumpsters or flooding the child care systems. It's better to have a safe alternative no matter if you don't like it, it saves WAY more lives.
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/
11.6% of abortions are committed by teenagers. That means the 88.4% of abortions are not teenage abortions so the argument about teenagers having sex 1. Again need to think of consequences 2. The majority of abortions are not even committed for this reason.