Support NeoGAF

[SquiddyCracker]

And what I'm stressing is that these things don't just magically come about.
But that cutway point is not accurate. What makes day 240 different from day 239? Or 238? And so on?
.

They don't come about magically, no, they come about as part of the natural development of the fetus. A fetus is more viable at day 240 than day 239, and 238, as is it more cognitively developed that day compared to earlier.

What is it that makes the cutaway point in-accurate?
I simplified things a bit because the development isn't strict progression from day 0 to day 240, but even with an adjusted development curve the same reasoning would still be utilized (by me, I'm not speaking for others).

Do you disagree with a fetus being more or less viable/developed (cognitively and otherwise) depending on how old it is?
The difference, I'm guessing, between you and me is that you don't attach value to viability or development, whereas I do.

 

[Dilly]

LOL, yeah I brought it up. Who cares? I'm not going to harp on the fact that you took some number at the very end of a section and....you know what, I like said. WHO CARES? You want to keep the pissing contest going over something that has no definition, then fine with me.
.

I'm not going to harp on the fact that you took some number at the very beginning of a section and...Oh wait, I don't care either.

 

[sonicmj1]

But that cutway point is not accurate. What makes day 240 different from day 239? Or 238? And so on?

By that standard, it would be impossible to set a cutoff point for statutory rape. Or voting age. Or basically any age limit at all. And the rate at which people develop after they are born is even more irregular than the rate at which they develop in the womb.

 

[MIMIC]

They don't come about magically, no, they come about as part of the natural development of the fetus. A fetus is more viable at day 240 than day 239, and 238, as is it more cognitively developed that day compared to earlier.

But more cognitively developed to forbid an abortion on day 240 than day 239?

(btw, I'm chose those numbers randomly, not with the intent of using then to portray 240 actual days)

What is it that makes the cutaway point in-accurate?
I simplified things a bit because the development isn't strict progression from day 0 to day 240, but even with an adjusted development curve the same reasoning would still be utilized (by me, I'm not speaking for others).

The cutaway point isn't accurate for the reasons I cited above: it isn't a precise measure of viability, which is what my main point of interest was: when a baby was considered viable and ineligible for an abortion (when not for a medical emergency).

Like if you put marbles into a flimsy basket, the basket is eventually going to break. That basket represents the abortion threshold (when not a medical emergency) and the marbles represent the baby's continued growth. When is the basket going to break, signalling that abortion is not OK?

Do you disagree with a fetus being more or less viable/developed (cognitively and otherwise) depending on how old it is?
The difference, I'm guessing, between you and me is that you don't attach value to viability or development, whereas I do.

Of course, but I obviously don't use that as my only point of consideration (when it comes to abortion).

 

[speedline]

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit. I'm glad one party out there is not afraid to protect innocent human life.

 

[Mumei]

(Sorry, I misinterpreted your earlier question)

Perfectly understandable.

Because in scenario #1, it was FORCED upon her. In scenario #2, it was voluntary.

Those are LEGAL differences; doing something by means of coercion and doing something willfully.

If someone coerces a person to set a building on fire, resulting in the deaths of 10 people, guess who's going to jail and who isn't (or in other words, who gets empathy)? If a person willfully sets a building on fire and it results in the deaths of 10 people, guess who isn't getting any empathy

Actually, in my scenario she is not consenting in either situation. While certainly there is a difference in whether she is consenting to sex, in neither situation is she consenting to carry a fetus to term. That is something that you wish to foist upon her through the force of law, up to and including imprisoning her, if the sex was consensual. If the sex was not consensual, you would abstain from forcing her to keep the fetus.

It seems to me, then, that all you would be doing is punishing women who choose to have sex, unnecessarily increasing the motivation to make false rape allegations, and failing to make any dent in the rate of abortion while dramatically increasing the number of women who die due to attempting their own illegal abortions.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

1.

They don't come about magically, no, they come about as part of the natural development of the fetus. A fetus is more viable at day 240 than day 239, and 238, as is it more cognitively developed that day compared to earlier.

But more cognitively developed to forbid an abortion on day 240 than day 239?
(btw, I'm chose those numbers randomly, not with the intent of using then to portray 240 actual days)

2.

What is it that makes the cutaway point in-accurate?
I simplified things a bit because the development isn't strict progression from day 0 to day 240, but even with an adjusted development curve the same reasoning would still be utilized (by me, I'm not speaking for others).

The cutaway point isn't accurate for the reasons I cited above: it isn't a precise measure of viability, which is what my main point of interest was: when a baby was considered viable and ineligible for an abortion (when not for a medical emergency).

Like if you put marbles into a flimsy basket, the basket is eventually going to break. That basket represents the abortion threshold (when not a medical emergency) and the marbles represent the baby's continued growth. When is the basket going to break, signalling that abortion is not OK?

3.

Do you disagree with a fetus being more or less viable/developed (cognitively and otherwise) depending on how old it is?
The difference, I'm guessing, between you and me is that you don't attach value to viability or development, whereas I do.

Of course, but I obviously don't use that as my only point of consideration (when it comes to abortion).

1. No, the abortion cut-off point has nothing to do with the development of the fetus alone, but how it relates to the pregnant woman.
That's why it doesn't matter whether it is 240 or 239 days old, they are in both those randomly selected numbers still developed enough for the value of the fetus to win out against the choice of the mother.

2. The cutaway point is somewhere between week 20-21, the point when it has 50%+ value, according to my calculations based on a linear development from day 0 to day 240. I'm guessing that the week 24 number was also reached via a similar calculation, only taking the actual development progress into consideration, so I'm okay with that being the legal limit as well.

It's also worth pointing out that not everyone consider viability to be a good enough factor to make a decision on, so the size of the basket might change depending on which factor you think is more important.

3. Fair enough, I'm only interested in making my position clear, not changing yours.

 

[Hitokage]

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit.

The father is more than welcome to complete the pregnancy.

 

[NullPointer]

The father is more than welcome to complete the pregnancy.

The father has no choice as far as his legal responsibilities to the child, should the mother not abort. To use some of the arguments in this thread I guess its OK to punish men for having sex.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

The father is more than welcome to complete the pregnancy.

This is an incredible answer. Chilling.

Reading the last three pages especially, it seems especially instructive in how the debate around women's reproductive rights has degenerated since last century. It was debated during times when we generally consider American culture to be more religious than the present day, and yet people wish to rehash the same furtive sayings and aphorisms in the rallying of 'life'. I suppose it might be a wax and wane pattern, in which the immense cruelty of one side to women appears less important to others in the wake of immense cruelty to zygotes and embryos.

 

[Walshicus]

If we're talking about thinking in a recognisably Human fashion being the decider for fœtal abortion then the reality is that the real cutoff is probably weeks after birth. 24 weeks is incredibly conservative.

 

[Jenov]

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit. I'm glad one party out there is not afraid to protect innocent human life.

Just strap 'em down for 9 months guys!

 

[soul creator]

Perfectly understandable.



Actually, in my scenario she is not consenting in either situation. While certainly there is a difference in whether she is consenting to sex, in neither situation is she consenting to carry a fetus to term. That is something that you wish to foist upon her through the force of law, up to and including imprisoning her, if the sex was consensual. If the sex was not consensual, you would abstain from forcing her to keep the fetus.

It seems to me, then, that all you would be doing is punishing women who choose to have sex, unnecessarily increasing the motivation to make false rape allegations, and failing to make any dent in the rate of abortion while dramatically increasing the number of women who die due to attempting their own illegal abortions.

soul creator likes this post

There's always a strong undercurrent of "you had consensual sex? *shades slide down* DEAL WITH IT"

Of course, this is always cloaked out of some concern for the fetus inside, while completely ignoring the woman standing right in front of them and all she has to go through (as mentioned many times before, pregnancy isn't a fun walk in the park). I guess pregnant women are solely viewed like this (without the hands)

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Anti-abortionists long ago reconciled the fact that outlawing abortion doesn't reduce the number of actual abortions. They reconciled this by the suggestion that, over time, with more stable laws against abortion for a generation or more, the tendency to carry babies to term would grow naturally in a population.

 

[Christine]

IS it?

I said that it seems so. You're the only one who knows if it actually is or not, so the natural inference here is that you intend to communicate ambiguity on the question of your sincerity.

LOL, and when is her "responsibility for its destruction" no longer valid?

As long as it's in her body, this question is hers to answer how she sees fit. No-one else has the authority to make this moral decision for her. For others to impose an external decision on her flesh is an act far worse than abortion; it is slavery.

Or is my mom walking over to me and slitting my throat a perfectly legitimate act?

I've been challenging you to demonstrate that analogies of this sort have relevance to the question of abortion. Thus far you have not done so.

I addressed this exact argument in the post you replied to:

I should add that should I agree that it is always wrong to destroy a particular life or a particular sort of life, it does not necessarily follow that I agree that it is always wrong to destroy life, unless you can show that this moral mandate is consequent of a quality universally present in all life.

None of the moral principles by which I condemn casual familial throat-slitting pertain to fetuses.

Right. She has the freedom to do whatever she wants. Just like I have the freedom to walk into a bank and demand all of the money. Or the freedom to vandalize someone's house. Or the freedom to run across the field naked during a football game.

Doesn't mean that our behavior doesn't come with a cost.

Is it your intent to claim that mothers who abort should face criminal consequences, as might someone who commits robbery, vandalism, or streaking?

Or are you just asserting once more that the cost of having penis-in-vagina intercourse is an absolute moral obligation to bear any resulting fetus to term?

You've yet to establish that any level of obligation is created, much less one with such overriding primacy.

It's this mistaken, unjustifiable axiom that corners otherwise good people into condoning the atrocities inherent in abortion prohibition. This is the problem that pushes you into fence-sitting on the black and white question of whether or not a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape.

You're unwilling to support a rape victim in her attempt to regain ownership over her body after having had her personal sovereignty cruelly violated.

This reclamation is often a deliberate choice to have the baby, by the way, but she can't even do that if abortion is prohibited.

Question to all of those who are pro-choice: At what point during a pregnancy is it NOT OK to abort the baby, and why?

This isn't a question to be answered by pro-choice people, or pro-life people, or anyone at all except the specific woman having the pregnancy in question.

 

[Veezy]

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit. I'm glad one party out there is not afraid to protect innocent human life.

Is the father in any situation, including rape or a one night stand with somebody random, going to pay for 100% of the following if the woman is forced under penalty of law:

1. Education
2. Prenatal care
3. Health care of the child till 18
4. Care of the mother regarding anything related to the pregnancy
5. Compensation for any time miss from work due
6. Day care
7. Clothing for the child and mother
8. Food
9. Toys


I mean, let's be real, the answer is no. So, there's that.

Also, the fuck you mean the father has the right to the baby. I suppose you could make that argument in a situation where two people sat down and discussed having a child, planned it out, and then a few months in she changes her mind. Maybe as if a perspective child is a piece of property nine months down the line. But otherwise? You think some 16 year old that hooks up with his HS girlfriend has the "right" to the eventual kid that pops out? Please. How silly.

@MIMIC - I'm sorry, I don't know what to say to you. You feel that women who abort are committing first degree murder, which is not only insane but you don't apply the same logic to all lost conceptions, you think that if a girl gets pregnant from any consensual sex she should be forced to carry to term consequences be damned, and the only thing you'll consent on, to give you credit, is universal care which is only a small portion of the costs associated with a child. You have no concern for the mother, no concern for the influx of children into an already stressed foster care system, no concern for the logical increase of deaths associated with births, no concern for the economic impact that all these pregnancies would have on society as a whole, and honestly don't even take into account that you don't have a womb so you can never know what it feels like to be pregnant.

So, that's cool, and it's your right to feel that way. However, just remember that even if we did make abortion a crime, not only would it not stop, so you'd just have back ally or self performed abortions, but we'd have more maternal deaths, more infant deaths, and more unhappy kids in the world while the only pro would be, I guess, the potential to have a few more "thank god I wasn't aborted because look how cool I am" stories. Seriously, I'm not being facetious here, I can't see any pro to outlawing abortion when looking at the cons in general and the expenses of kids specifically. So, if all that is really worth you, a man who is never going to be impacted by another person's abortion, then congrats. There's nothing more to be said.

 

[Duffyside]

Pretty much the only thing worth responding to, as I already addressed IvF and am trying to spare Devo the torment of having to "entertain" me, seeing as they can't resist:

Duffyside, the fact you're persisting with some conviction is admirable, even if I find your point of view abhorrent,

D'aaaaw, thanks!

I'll ask you to elaborate on one point.

Considering this human life is growing inside of a woman, does the woman whom it is growing inside have any more right than anybody else to decide if the child should be born? Or do you see it as an absolute fact that once conceived, the child is alive and that's that?

I do see it as an absolute fact that once a human is conceived, that is that. Though this is not to say that there aren't some scenarios in which an abortion should be permitted (if not even encouraged, such as "fallopian pregnancy" or whatever it's called) and in pretty much all of those situations the decision should be left up to the woman. Maybe I can think of a crazy hypothetical, but this thread has had enough of that.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Men's blahblahblah overriding women's choices.........

Maybe I should check out all of those mpreg fanfics after all. Whee.

 

[Karakand]

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit. I'm glad one party out there is not afraid to protect innocent human life.

Love the quotation marks.

 

[Devolution]

Love the quotation marks.

Well it's not her body it's a baby oven.

 

[MIMIC]

Perfectly understandable.



Actually, in my scenario she is not consenting in either situation. While certainly there is a difference in whether she is consenting to sex, in neither situation is she consenting to carry a fetus to term. That is something that you wish to foist upon her through the force of law, up to and including imprisoning her, if the sex was consensual. If the sex was not consensual, you would abstain from forcing her to keep the fetus.

That right there is my point. The SEX is consensual. She was not coerced into having a baby, therefore there is no empathy regarding the result. I can empathize with a rape victim, however.

It seems to me, then, that all you would be doing is punishing women who choose to have sex, unnecessarily increasing the motivation to make false rape allegations, and failing to make any dent in the rate of abortion while dramatically increasing the number of women who die due to attempting their own illegal abortions.

Ummmm......so is the drinking law is to blame for kids who drink under-age? That's ridiculous.

1. No, the abortion cut-off point has nothing to do with the development of the fetus alone, but how it relates to the pregnant woman.
That's why it doesn't matter whether it is 240 or 239 days old, they are in both those randomly selected numbers still developed enough for the value of the fetus to win out against the choice of the mother.

But the closer and closer you get to zero, the less you can definitely determine viability, cognitive capabilities, etc. Which is why, IMO, an abortion cut off point is arbitrary and wrong because it can't be explained.

As long as it's in her body, this question is hers to answer how she sees fit. No-one else has the authority to make this moral decision for her. For others to impose an external decision on her flesh is an act far worse than abortion; it is slavery.

So you agree that 9 months and 2 days into a pregnancy with 3 scheduled days remaining, the woman can say that she simply doesn't want to be pregnant anymore and it is perfectly reasonable to terminate her pregnancy?

I've been challenging you to demonstrate that analogies of this sort have relevance to the question of abortion. Thus far you have not done so.

I got the impression that you believed that the mere creation of a life entitled the woman to do whatever she wanted with it, WHENEVER she wanted. But you clarified that she has control so long as it is in her body (to which I posed a question in my above response)

Is it your intent to claim that mothers who abort should face criminal consequences, as might someone who commits robbery, vandalism, or streaking?

Or are you just asserting once more that the cost of having penis-in-vagina intercourse is an absolute moral obligation to bear any resulting fetus to term?

Yes....and is such with other responsibilities. If you cause something that has an effect on others, saying "go away" simply doesn't cut it.

You've yet to establish that any level of obligation is created, much less one with such overriding primacy.

A life is created, and under the law, infringing upon human life is a crime.

There's the obligation right there.

This isn't a question to be answered by pro-choice people, or pro-life people, or anyone at all except the specific woman having the pregnancy in question.

This is is where I have a problem. Just because it resides in the woman, it doesn't give her full reign to whatever she wants with it. It's not like it's some inanimate object that she is being forced to cope with. If that were the case, she could abort it whenever she pleases.

So, that's cool, and it's your right to feel that way. However, just remember that even if we did make abortion a crime, not only would it not stop, so you'd just have back ally or self performed abortions, but we'd have more maternal deaths, more infant deaths, and more unhappy kids in the world while the only pro would be, I guess, the potential to have a few more "thank god I wasn't aborted because look how cool I am" stories. Seriously, I'm not being facetious here, I can't see any pro to outlawing abortion when looking at the cons in general and the expenses of kids specifically. So, if all that is really worth you, a man who is never going to be impacted by another person's abortion, then congrats. There's nothing more to be said.

NO law has successfully put an end to the act in which it criminalized.

 

[Demon Ice]

HOLE #3 - In pregnancy, the fetus used the mother's body for 9 months and then vacates. How on earth is your analogy supposed to hold up when the baby didn't actually take anything from the mother? The mother HOUSES the baby; it didn't actually TAKE anything. Female organisms were built to house other organisms within them. That's why a pregnant woman can go from being pregnant to looking nothing happened. THEY WERE BUILT FOR SUCH A THING. If I hand over part of my liver to a dying person, do I get it back in 9 months? A woman's body does not undergo a significant-enough change to justify the permanent removal of someone's organs. A doctor would examine a woman and determine that she is perfectly healthy and normal. A doctor would examine a person who gave a way an organ and say that there is a severe problem with his insides.

This invalidates the entire argument.

HAHAHAHAHA

Oh wow

You literally do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, do you?

Pregnancy is the single most stressful thing a woman's body can go through. Even with modern healthcare being at the level it's at today, women die giving birth to their children.

Seriously, your post implying that woman's bodies just magically bounce back after pregnancies as if nothing happened would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I'd add you to my ignore list but the entertainment value of your posts is just too high.

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit. I'm glad one party out there is not afraid to protect innocent human life.

This is amazing. Great use of quotation marks. You're totally right. After you get a woman pregnant, her uterus is actually partly owned by you too. Genius.

I do see it as an absolute fact that once a human is conceived, that is that.

ITT people don't know the definition of the word "Fact."

I see it as an absolute fact that the sky is pink and unicorns exist.

A fetus isn't magically human life just because you want it to be. Is a cancerous tumor considered human life? Why is a zygote, literally a ball of cells, considered a human life that deserves to be weighted equally with the life of the woman?

Edit: I hope none of these male Pro-Lifers masturbate. Sperm cells are life.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

But the closer and closer you get to zero, the less you can definitely determine viability, cognitive capabilities, etc. Which is why, IMO, an abortion cut off point is arbitrary and wrong because it can't be explained.

You can determine it enough, in my opinion.
An abortion is 100% okay at day 0 because it is 0% developed, and abortion is 0% okay at day 240 because it is then 100% developed.
Take into account the non-regular development pace, and find plot this in a graph, then you simply select the mid-way point as the cut-off point - when it becomes less than 50% okay to abort.

It's an elegant solution.

EDIT: Look, it's already used to a degree:

I'm guessing that they used a similar solution to the one I proposed then when setting the legal limit at week 24.
If I have some time, I'll create an equivalent measure based on cognitive development instead of viability, but I'm guessing it'll land somewhere between week 20-24 as well.

 

[Veezy]

NO law has successfully put an end to the act in which it criminalized.

Indeed. However, when a law is put in place and it makes society a worse off place than before, one should logically question if such a law is a good decision in the first place.

Abortion being legal is good for society. Abortion being illegal is not. There's not away to argue out of this. It's still going to occur and if you stop it you have the issues from all these kids who are either unloved from the start or will be poorly taken care of (see the multiple times this has been covered). That seems contrary to me.

 

[Lamel]

So you agree that 9 months and 2 days into a pregnancy with 3 scheduled days remaining, the woman can say that she simply doesn't want to be pregnant anymore and it is perfectly reasonable to terminate her pregnancy?

No that's idiotic. Thankfully that virtually NEVER happens and no one woman in her right mind would do it and no doctor in their right mind would perform that "abortion".

Only .08% of abortions happen in the 3rd trimester. Mainly due to dangers to the mother's health and/or problems with the fetus.

 

[Duffyside]

No that's idiotic. Thankfully that virtually NEVER happens and no one woman in her right mind would do it and no doctor in their right mind would perform that "abortion".

Only .08% of abortions happen in the 3rd trimester. Mainly due to dangers to the mother's health and/or problems with the fetus.

I hope you realize how many (otherwise) intelligent people in this thread you just called idiotic. A bunch of people in this thread say, yes, a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy until the moment the baby is born, because it is inside her body and using it against her will, dammit!

The only admirable thing about this position is its consistency with their principle. It doesn't matter how low the percentage is in how often this happens, or why it happens, but if it should be allowed to occur for whatever reason the woman chooses. And they say yes.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I am not too well-versed in the matter or in the laws regulating such matter, but, supposedly if a married woman--or let's just say a perfectly capable woman--is trying to have an abortion, what about the husband/partner? Do they have any say in it or not, legally speaking?

In the case of consenting sex between two partners, of course.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I am not too well-versed in the matter or in the laws regulating such matter, but, supposedly if a married woman--or let's just say a perfectly capable woman--is trying to have an abortion, what about the husband/partner? Do they have any say in it or not, legally speaking?

In the case of consenting sex between two partners, of course.

No say whatsoever, because implementing a say in the law would mean removing the pregnant woman's control over her body,

 

[Laughing Banana]

No say whatsoever, because implementing a say in the law would mean removing the pregnant woman's control over her body,

Is that so? Even in the case of a married couple?

Hmm. Okay then.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit. I'm glad one party out there is not afraid to protect innocent human life.

Universal healthcare would protect 300 million innocent people per year yet that party appears to be very afraid of it.

 

[Hitokage]

The father can try to convince the mother, but if the mother insists the father can't just declare dominion over his wife. Women aren't property.

This may lead to a break in the relationship, but the by-force option is worse.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Laughing Banana, Im not in the US, so I don't know how things are there. But, my friend just had an abortion last year, and she consulted her boyfriend before hand, and they agreed that both of them were not ready to commit / for a family, and she opted for the procedure and thankfully it's legal here, and there was good support and she was provided for a safe clinic and he was involved in the decision making.

I would suppose that such a thing would not have been possible if ALL abortions are deemed illegal in the country.

/anecdata

 

[Duffyside]

Do fetuses have mothers and fathers? Interesting...

 

[The Technomancer]

Do fetuses have mothers and fathers? Interesting...

You're playing semantic games

 

[Demon Ice]

Do fetuses have mothers and fathers? Interesting...

You're desperate enough to fall back on weak semantics? Interesting...

Edit: Nice.

 

[Delusibeta]

Anti-abortionists long ago reconciled the fact that outlawing abortion doesn't reduce the number of actual abortions. They reconciled this by the suggestion that, over time, with more stable laws against abortion for a generation or more, the tendency to carry babies to term would grow naturally in a population.

I wouldn't be too surprised if a similar argument was made about alcohol prohibition, and look at how that turned out. I'm not saying that banning all abortions will lead in a rise of gangsters with rusty coat hangers, but I am saying that it'll result in more illegal abortions and subsequently more dead women.

 

[Mumei]

That right there is my point. The SEX is consensual. She was not coerced into having a baby, therefore there is no empathy regarding the result. I can empathize with a rape victim, however.

I know that is the difference to you. I have known that from the beginning. I want to know why that makes a difference to you. You keep saying "She consented to sex!" as if that statement in and of itself had some self-explanatory power as to why you would suddenly be bereft of empathy for her. I honestly do not get it: You claim to understand how terrible it would be to force a woman to have a child she does not want. Yet you would force her to do it anyway if the sex as consensual; you would punish her for having consensual sex and not lying about it.

And as an aside, it says a lot about you and the way you are attempting to emotionally distance yourself from the reality of what you propose when you say that you have no empathy for her predicament simply because she had consensual sex. You have not once attempted to actually put yourself in a woman's position in the society you propose or think outside of your own perspective, and that shows when you can unashamedly say "there is no empathy regarding the result."

 

[DR2K]

Would all you pro-lifers be willing to take care of the unwanted children? From financial obligations to actually taking care of the baby itself. Some of you seem to want to punish women for having sex, exceptions for aborition mean you selectivley value "life", which goes against anti-choice.

 

[Duffyside]

You're playing semantic games

Not really. Tumors don't have mothers and fathers. Lifeforms do. And to what species does this lifeform in question belong?

Would all you pro-lifers be willing to take care of the unwanted children? From financial obligations to actually taking care of the baby itself. Some of you seem to want to punish women for having sex, exceptions for aborition mean you selectivley value "life", which goes against anti-choice.

So tired of hearing people bring up unwanted children. It's the "better off dead" argument. I feel the same way about unwanted children in the womb as I (and you) feel about unwanted children outside of the womb. Whatever social programs and laws we come up with to try and make sure these children are cared for is secondary, at best, to making sure people don't kill them.

 

[Future]

I know that is the difference to you. I have known that from the beginning. I want to know why that makes a difference to you. You keep saying "She consented to sex!" as if that statement in and of itself had some self-explanatory power as to why you would suddenly be bereft of empathy for her. I honestly do not get it: You claim to understand how terrible it would be to force a woman to have a child she does not want. Yet you would force her to do it anyway if the sex as consensual; you would punish her for having consensual sex and not lying about it.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the male perspective. Man and woman has consensual sex. Woman gets pregnant, but man does not want to have the baby. Woman does, and has baby. Man is forced into lifetime of child support, and is told that he should not have had the sex if he wasn't willing to bear responsibility.

 

[DR2K]

So tired of hearing people bring up unwanted children. It's the "better off dead" argument. I feel the same way about unwanted children in the womb as I (and you) feel about unwanted children outside of the womb. Whatever social programs and laws we come up with to try and make sure these children are cared for is secondary, at best, to making sure people don't kill them.

So you would be willing to take care of a child for your ideals? I'm talking about stepping in and doing the job that the mother can not. Not just financial support or programs that this party wants to actually cut, but stepping in and taking that responsibility?

 

[The Technomancer]

Not really. Tumors don't have mothers and fathers. Lifeforms do. And to what species does this lifeform in question belong?

The terms "mother" and "father" mean what people say they mean, nothing more. Its perfectly possible to use them to refer the people responsible for the inception of a a developing life form that still isn't recognized as a human being yet. Like I said, semantics.

 

[CLEEK]

It's not the womans body, a fetus is another person. Not only that, that fetus also shares dna with another person. The Father has as much right to that baby as the Mother. The right to choose what a woman does with "her body" is total bullshit. I'm glad one party out there is not afraid to protect innocent human life.

Son, you clearly have issues with women. Taking it out on them by wanting to deny them basic human rights is cowardly.

Fathers' rights start when the baby starts: at birth. Up until birth, the pregnancy is an internal, biological process unique to the mother.

 

[Duffyside]

So you would be willing to take care of a child for your ideals? I'm talking about stepping in and doing the job that the mother can not. Not just financial support or programs that this party wants to actually cut, but stepping in and taking that responsibility?

Yes, DR2K, I am personally going to take care of every child for my ideals. You're being ridiculous. You don't think unwanted children should be murdered outside the womb, so open your doors and prove it, DR2K, let them all in, and take care of them.

To not dodge your ridiculous question, I do suspect I will one day adopt multiple children. Hope, actually. The only thing I question is if I'll ever have children of "my own."

The terms "mother" and "father" mean what people say they mean, nothing more. Its perfectly possible to use them to refer the people responsible for the inception of a a developing life form that still isn't recognized as a human being yet. Like I said, semantics.

Like I said, wrong. And whether or not it's a human being isn't really up for question, it seems. Just look at earlier in this thread when people admitted it was, but said they still didn't care.

 

[The Technomancer]

Like I said, wrong. And whether or not it's a human being isn't really up for question, it seems. Just look at earlier in this thread when people admitted it was, but said they still didn't care.

Yes, this keeps happening because people keep dragging semantics into this argument. Words like "murder", "human being", "mother", "father", all of these are things we can debate endlessly over. Which is why I like to constrain it to things like:
Does pregnancy have significant physiological effects on and risks for a woman's body? Yes/No?

 

[Duffyside]

Yes, this keeps happening because people keep dragging semantics into this argument. Words like "murder", "human being", "mother", "father", all of these are things we can debate endlessly over. Which is why I like to constrain it to things like:
Does pregnancy have significant physiological effects on and risks for a woman's body? Yes/No?

No, it keeps happening because it's seemingly impossible to refute that a fetus is a living, distinct human being. I wish it wasn't.

And you want to constrain it to that because it helps justify your position. But anyway... Yes. So don't get pregnant.

 

[The Technomancer]

No, it keeps happening because it's seemingly impossible to refute that a fetus is a living, distinct human being. I wish it wasn't.

And you want to constrain it to that because it helps justify your position. But anyway... Yes. So don't get pregnant.

Ah, so you can pull the cells forming a fetus out of the woman at two weeks into the pregnancy and they'll survive in the environment? I'll even grant you all the advanced technology available to help this "human" survive, just like people with severe medical conditions and fetuses that are 9 months into development (the latter of which every pro-choice person I've ever met agrees is only acceptable in cases of risk to the mother's life)

 

[DR2K]

Yes, DR2K, I am personally going to take care of every child for my ideals. You're being ridiculous. You don't think unwanted children should be murdered outside the womb, so open your doors and prove it, DR2K, let them all in, and take care of them.

To not dodge your ridiculous question, I do suspect I will one day adopt multiple children. Hope, actually. The only thing I question is if I'll ever have children of "my own."



Like I said, wrong. And whether or not it's a human being isn't really up for question, it seems. Just look at earlier in this thread when people admitted it was, but said they still didn't care.

It's a hypothetical, obviously one person can only do so much. The onus of taking care of the child will be on the people who force the child into life.

I don't consider a fetus a child. I do think some people are better off never being born. There's a few continents with starving children that can attest to that.

 

[CLEEK]

Yes, this keeps happening because people keep dragging semantics into this argument. Words like "murder", "human being", "mother", "father", all of these are things we can debate endlessly over. Which is why I like to constrain it to things like:
Does pregnancy have significant physiological effects on and risks for a woman's body? Yes/No?

Pregnancy is a medically riskiest thing they can do. There are dozens of different complications brought about from the psychophysical changes that can put the would-be mother in danger. And a loads more less serious issues that can impact on post-pregnancy quality of life. Osteoporosis, hair loss, teeth loss, diabetes, and more.

Not forgetting that actual process of natural birth us inherently risky, due to the comparative massive size of the human skull. On top of this, there are the physiological factors to contend with, and the hormonal changes affecting personality. The cause of post natal depression isn't yet confirmed, but is a profound thing to be struck with.

 

[Duffyside]

Ah, so you can pull the cells forming a fetus out of the woman at two weeks into the pregnancy and they'll survive in the environment? I'll even grant you all the advanced technology available to help this "human" survive, just like people with severe medical conditions and fetuses that are 9 months into development (the latter of which every pro-choice person I've ever met agrees is only acceptable in cases of risk to the mother's life)

I don't need the advanced technology. This is only an argument in circumstances of rape. If the woman doesn't want an evil fetus sucking the juice out of her organs and destroying her body, she shouldn't put it there in the first place.

And let me introduce you to NeoGAF where, again, plenty of people in this thread think a "fetus" can be terminated at nine months for whatever reason the mother chooses. They think of it more as a parasite. I'm not exaggerating.

It's a hypothetical, obviously one person can only do so much. The onus of taking care of the child will be on the people who force the child into life.

I don't consider a fetus a child. I do think some people are better off never being born. There's a few continents with starving children that can attest to that.

The child is forced into life at conception, though. That is the "problem."

I think some people are better off never having been created, but once they are, you can't kill them.