Abortion Debate / Discussion Only In This Thread
- Thread starter JayDubya
- Start date
- Status
permutated
Banned
zoku88 said:
I meant you don't go looking to buy a car if you're not ready to drive, just like you don't active seek a sexual relationship (whatever form it may take) unless you're ready or willing to participate in the act itself.
Anyhow, I have to go to class, see you guys around.
zoku88 said:
Are you not happy with your life? I ask because you sound like you wouldn't care if your parents would have done this to you? What are your thoughts on not being given the chance to live before you experience anything? Would you rather not be here, living at all?
You make it sound like life itself is worthless.
How could I care? That doesn't even make sense.permutated said:
I don't think a lot of the questions are quite rational.
Like, asking if, given the choice, if I wished to be aborted in the womb or be allowed to live. If I were to be aborted that early, *I* would have never existed. It's not the same as saying if I prefer living or dying. It's asking if I would have wanted to exist or not, which is unanswerable since I didn't exist at that point.
EDIT: If you're wondering, I think the life of a non-sentient fetus is worthless.
Okay, then we're back to the car accident example. Can you support your reasoning without resorting to, "it's murder?" If so, I'd love to hear it. If not, just say it's murder and stop muddying the water.daw840 said:
Exact same situation as if my parents never had sex. That doesn't mean that all people should have sex at all possible opportunities, though.permutated said:
All right, let's use the rape example to set up an interesting hypothetical.
A woman is raped, and she is refused an abortion because it is now illegal.
1. Who pays for the doctor's visits and genereal medical needs of the unwilling mother, including childbirth and any pre or post natal care needed?
2. Would she be allowed to continue any legal but bad habits, such as excessive drinking or smoking, or would she be mandated by the government to change her lifestyle because of potential fetal harm to something she was forced to carry against her will?
A woman is raped, and she is refused an abortion because it is now illegal.
1. Who pays for the doctor's visits and genereal medical needs of the unwilling mother, including childbirth and any pre or post natal care needed?
2. Would she be allowed to continue any legal but bad habits, such as excessive drinking or smoking, or would she be mandated by the government to change her lifestyle because of potential fetal harm to something she was forced to carry against her will?
ZAK said:
I am lost on your line of reasoning here. Alright, yes I do believe that killing a human is murder in most circumstances. Self defense and war being the only two exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head. Yes it is murder if you do something stupid and kill someone in a car accident. If you were at fault for an accident that killed someone you should be tried for manslaughter at the very least.
Why are we back to the car accident analogy after I said that "take responsibility for your actions" is not a red herring?
Why not? What makes a life able to taken then, by the same definitions?daw840 said:
And to shut others up, my mother had an aneurysm at 18. She had to learn how to walk again. She was told never to have children. She has 3. I would have fully defended her right to have me aborted to save her life.
daw840 said:
JayDubya said he is implicitly against abortion even in those cases, and even stated that if his wife were raped, he would raise the child. That's very nice and all because they're in a stable environment, but I think he glossed over the fact that many women who are raped are single and are not in a position to give up their job/lifestyle in order to provide a safe environment for a fetus she never wanted to begin with to develop. Additionally, in Jay's ideal world she would then be fully legally culpable for any harm done to the fetus in the uterus, so she would lose the right to choose what goes into her body.
M3wThr33 said:
I can't really give a good answer on this. My line of thinking on this is that if you have consensual sex, you are taking the risk of having a kid. If you are raped, there should be an exception drawn because you did not do this willingly. You were attacked and forced to be pregnant basically. I am not a hard nosed pro-life advocate. I believe there are certain circumstances where it is appropriate, but not just because you were stupid and didn't use a form of birth control.
Not debating, just voting.
+1 womens rights all the way. Their body, their choice.
Hard to imagine an alternative opinion in this day and age that isn't steeped in ridiculous religious origins, and the idea that our opinions should count toward their decisions is just as ridiculous anyway.
+1 womens rights all the way. Their body, their choice.
Hard to imagine an alternative opinion in this day and age that isn't steeped in ridiculous religious origins, and the idea that our opinions should count toward their decisions is just as ridiculous anyway.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
Ok so anti-choice people,
What is your proposed punishment for women that have abortions? It's murder right? So, death penalty?
What is your proposed punishment for women that have abortions? It's murder right? So, death penalty?
I will say this, I'm not against abortion per se (though I think it's a complete shame when it occurs) but I AM utterly opposed to it being covered by medical insurance (or worse, tax payers) unless there's a documented medical necessity (and yes, I'm including abortions for rape victims. If you want it out you either pay for it yourself or you get the jackass that raped you to pay for it, but unless there's a medical need...). Otherwise, it's not much different than plastic surgery. You don't want something about yourself that a doctor has told you is not medically necessary, therefore it should come out of your pocket.
kame-sennin
Member
daw840 said:
I think Jaydub's position is more logical than yours. If you believe that abortion - even first trimester abortions - is the killing of an innocent human being, than why would said killing be acceptable because the victim's (aborted fetus, that is) father is a rapist? You certainly would not be allowed to kill the two year old child of a rape victim. Why? Because a two year old child is universally considered a human being. Killing a human because of the crimes of its father, or to prevent emotional damage to the mother, is not legally or morally acceptable to most people. This leads me to believe that you do not view a fetus as a true human being.
daw840 said:
This also leads me to believe that you view anti-abortion legislation as more of a punishment for the promiscuous and irresponsible than as a deterrent to protect life.
Just putting aside the core aspect of the debate for a second, I find it insane that the father has absolutely no rights in an abortion situation. I mean, although I'm quite a strong anti-abortion supporter, I can see where other people are coming from.
However, I just can't fathom people that think in a situation where a father says "I am willing to raise and support this child once it is born" the mother is just allowed to say screw you, I'm having an abortion. I think that is absolutely heinous.
However, I just can't fathom people that think in a situation where a father says "I am willing to raise and support this child once it is born" the mother is just allowed to say screw you, I'm having an abortion. I think that is absolutely heinous.
Clearly I need to explain.daw840 said:
Talking about responsibility is a crappy argument. You're opposed to abortion because you think it's murder. If you want to prove me wrong, please advance the "people should take responsibility" argument without relying on your view that abortion is murder. That's where the car accident example comes in: hypothetically letting people stay mangled in order to make them bear responsibility for their actions, even if we can easily reverse them. My point being that it's no longer a responsibility if its consequences are so easily undone; it's only irresponsible if you assume beforehand that they can't be undone, which means you can't use it to argue that it shouldn't be undone without first assuming what you're trying to conclude, which is why I call it a crappy argument.
Again, if you can argue this a different way, please do.
JayDubya, did you want to do something similar...?
typhonsentra
Banned
I still argue that given Palin's increased rhetoric on abortion recently, the ban on the other thread should be lifted.
Zoe said:
I don't think any of those things should override the father's rights. I just don't think that one party should be able to force an abortion on another. I don't think I'll ever be able to understand it. I should probably get out of this thread now, because this in particular makes me too angry.
cyclonekruse
Member
malek4980 said:
Based on what reasoning? What shows that they're sentient? Also, what do you mean by "sentient," here?
Life is a chemical reaction, its a biological virus, thats all.
Life requires DNA from a father and a mother. I say the mother and the father should both have to sign consent to having a baby together, the emotional and financial costs are too high to not to have a choice in the matter. Under the equal protection clause, if a woman has a choice, so should a man.
Life requires DNA from a father and a mother. I say the mother and the father should both have to sign consent to having a baby together, the emotional and financial costs are too high to not to have a choice in the matter. Under the equal protection clause, if a woman has a choice, so should a man.
kame-sennin
Member
goomba said:
That's insane. Only the mother bares the burden of actually carrying the child, to say nothing of the physical changes she will have to live with for the rest of her life. How can you force someone else to give birth?
I think he was specifically talking about situations when a woman will have the child regardless of the father's wish, in which case I completely agree. Why should the woman's wish take precedence over mine? Yes, she is the one that is pregnant, but we will both be as invested and bound to the child as each other. I shouldn't be forced into being a father simply because the woman wishes to give birth. She can have a child pretty much anytime she wants, whereas if she gives birth now, that's it, I must be a father. And if the woman does ultimately give birth to the child, I should certainly not be forced into providing financial support for said child. Only when mutual consent is reached should mutual support be required.kame-sennin said:
speculawyer
Member
JayDubya disagrees.daw840 said:
Added to my post a bit.Zoe said:
Well that's true, but that's when the signature of consent would come in. While the woman is pregnant, if both partners sign for the birth then the man would become legally bound to provide financial support. If the man chooses not to sign, then it at least it gives the woman the choice to abort/adopt if she feels she won't be able to cope (financially).
speculawyer
Member
meh . . . you could probably discuss the effect of Palin's view on the election there . . . but if you get into the actual nitty gritty of the abortion debate, it doesn't belong there since it just goes around in the same circles over and over . . . . it clogs up the discussion of the election.typhonsentra said:
speculawyer
Member
Statistically speaking, you are a very rare bird.JayDubya said:
And though you will likely deny it, I still suspect your view does have religious origins.
(Were you pro-choice before you left the flock?)
rainking187
Member
Nikashi said:
I typically don't like to get involved in these discussions as it never ends well, but that's one of the most insane things I've ever heard. Would he really suggest that if a teenager were raped and impregnated she be forced to have the child? Probably drop out of school and end up in a situation that's no good for either the mother or the child. And is your wife aware you would force her to have her rapists child? Because if not make sure you record it when you tell her you feel that way so you can post her horrified reaction on Youtube.
kame-sennin
Member
Aurora said:
That actually doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't think it would work very well in practice though, as it would simply open the door for fathers to become deadbeats.
Zoe said:
I imagine the same thing that would happen to a woman in the same situation. They would both be stuck as most states don't allow late-term abortions.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
typhonsentra said:
No, too many previous threads have been derailed by it, hence the existence of this thread.
Not open to compromise on this unless a game-changing event in the campaigns with respect to this issue make it necessary for re-evaluation, and Palin's minor quips are not sufficient.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
JayDubya said:
Sorry, he should of said "or JayDubian fantasy lands."
kame-sennin
Member
JayDubya said:
On this point, doesn't abolition essentially force a woman to provide life support to the fetus? I'm not familiar with the actual medical procedure, but I do know that all that is necessary to abort a fetus is to remove it from its mother. Wouldn't that fall under removing a positive as apposed to adding a negative?
On those grounds, it doesn't seem fair to force a mother to maintain life support - at significant physical cost - for a fetus.
Then the man is fucked. As wrong as I find it to force a man into being a father, I find it more so to force a woman to birth a child, and therefore the woman will always have the final say on the matter - I don't think this could ever change. However, the legal binding of child support for fathers can be changed.numble said:
But of course the fact is that many bastards exist who would jump at the chance to legally bail out of parenthood, and so my theory is probably not applicable, though it seems just.
permutated
Banned
Nikashi said:
Lets not, it's a small percentage of people that are in hurtful situations that will be in those situations regardless of the freedom to choose.
There are millions of gun deaths every year, guns are still legal aren't they? Obviously the freedom to choose doesn't automatically fix every issue now does it?
- Status