Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.

You might wanna re-think that.

I couldn't get a vasectomy w/o my then-wife's approval.

And if you fought it and took it to the Supreme Court the law would get tossed out like it should.

 Rotary wrote:
Human fetuses are babys, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around a fetuses age truly makes no difference. Show me a fetus born of a woman that turns out a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.

Every sperm and egg is a baby in a yet unrealized combination, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around an arbitrary bundle of cells in proximity to each other truly makes no difference. Show me an egg and sperm that's then born of a woman that turns out to a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.

Ergo, by not forcing everyone to reproduce as rapidly as possible, you're literally slaughtering millions, daily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

any responsible, enlightened couple

I found the flaw!

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It only physically affects one person. Pregnancy is a complex medical problem experienced by the woman that is having her body adapt to this condition. The man might have been involved in making it, by it's the woman's body that is forever changed and/or damaged by this.

A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.

pregnancy isnt forced.... when you have consensual sex, you have consented-to the possibility of having a child, together, and there most certainly is mutual "ownership" of the child at any stage,

abortions can also harm a womans body, let alone the childs, so the "OMG PREGNANCY IS AWFUL" argument isnt as valid as you think,

not to mention your argument is basically "you dont have a vagina, so your opinion does not count"

it takes two to make one, it takes two to choose if they want to break one.

any responsible, enlightened couple, will make a mutual decision, not a unilateral one based on who has the vagina.

Fething a woman didn't give you ownership or medical decision making rights over her body.

It's not rocket science. You wanting the child does not mean you get to violate her right to make her own healthcare decisions.

OP, as well as the text could you please provide a link to where you're getting your content from?

 azazel the cat wrote:
In many cases, I'm actually okay with abortions up until the 60th trimester.

I am also of the view that post-natal abortions can indeed be a good thing

On topic I really do not have an opinion about abortion.

I stopped reading when I got to the part with the random unrelated anti-homosexual rant.

If they're trying to make a point it's kinda lost amongst the noise of a bunch of other redneck drivel.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.

You might wanna re-think that.

I couldn't get a vasectomy w/o my then-wife's approval.

And if you fought it and took it to the Supreme Court the law would get tossed out like it should.

Hey... just wanted to point that out to you.

Next time you talk to your urologist... go ahead and ask the MD.

 d-usa wrote:

Fething a woman didn't give you ownership or medical decision making rights over her body.

It's not rocket science. You wanting the child does not mean you get to violate her right to make her own healthcare decisions.

who said I wanted the kid?

good to see you are just arguing out of fashionable outrage at a position I only take in your imagination.

A woman shouldnt be able to force a man to keep a child any more then he should be able to force her to keep it.



its not rocket science, it takes TWO to make a kid consensually, it takes TWO to deal with the consequences.

should women get the ENTIRE vote since its inside them for 9 months?
well men still have the rest of the 18+ years to deal with it, and that woman consented to have sex, which means its a mutual thing. She knew getting pregnant was a risk when she consented to sex, just like the man did.

so yes men do have a say.


by your logic, when a man breaks his back earning $, he should have the right to ALL that money, and not give the wife a say in how its spent.

 daedalus wrote:

 Rotary wrote:
Human fetuses are babys, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around a fetuses age truly makes no difference. Show me a fetus born of a woman that turns out a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.

Every sperm and egg is a baby in a yet unrealized combination, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around an arbitrary bundle of cells in proximity to each other truly makes no difference. Show me an egg and sperm that's then born of a woman that turns out to a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.

Ergo, by not forcing everyone to reproduce as rapidly as possible, you're literally slaughtering millions, daily.

That is funny to think about But sperm and egg's only have 23 chromosomes, left to their own seperated from each other they will never become a human. A zygote will, however. I personally don't believe in abortion, but i've had to experience still borns and even worse things in my life.

My only argument is that they are human regardless of what people call it. Mothers self abort fetuses all the time naturally, sometimes with out ever knowing they were pregnant. I want to avoid the abortion topic because I can't make adult choices for others. Regardless of how or when a fetus/baby dies it is still a human, unique from both parents.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Fething a woman didn't give you ownership or medical decision making rights over her body.

It's not rocket science. You wanting the child does not mean you get to violate her right to make her own healthcare decisions.

who said I wanted the kid?

good to see you are just arguing out of fashionable outrage at a position I only take in your imagination.

A woman shouldnt be able to force a man to keep a child any more then he should be able to force her to keep it.



its not rocket science, it takes TWO to make a kid consensually, it takes TWO to deal with the consequences.

should women get the ENTIRE vote since its inside them for 9 months?
well men still have the rest of the 18+ years to deal with it, and that woman consented to have sex, which means its a mutual thing. She knew getting pregnant was a risk when she consented to sex, just like the man did.

so yes men do have a say.


by your logic, when a man breaks his back earning $, he should have the right to ALL that money, and not give the wife a say in how its spent.

The reason the man doesn't have a say in abortions is because it has nothing to do with the man. Legally it doesn't even have anything to do with the child. It's a medical procedure and the decision to have it is between a woman and her physician.

She doesn't get to make a unilateral decision about what procedure to force on the child because the child is inside of her for 9 months, it's not a procedure for the child. She gets to make a unilateral decision about what procedure she wants to consent to for her body because it is her body.

It's simple really.

I actually agree with d-USA here, with some caveats.

I think late term abortions should require the say of both parents.

I think men should have some recourse if they'd prefer to abort and the woman doesn't want to so they're not on the hook for 18 years, as sadly "trap" pregnancies are a very real thing.

I am pro choice, or pro baby murder, whatever way you want to call it.

But that said, I dunno about all this messing around with language. Fetus, baby, newborn, it's semantics.

I dislike it when people say "The science says" or "the facts say".

Because in truth, science has nothing in particular to say about when a ball of genetically unique cells becomes a "person" with rights and legal protections and so on. It's not a question which is in the scope of science to answer. It's a question of philosophy and ethics, and of the kind of society we want. Science doesn't answer stuff like that. For some people, it's religion that does, for others it's a personal ethic. Demanding people "stick to the science" is a very poor argument.

For myself, I do figure that the little ball of cells is at least a potential person, but I'm okay with that person dying because I have no connection to them. This is much the same as me not having any real reaction to the thousands of deaths happening for frivolous reasons around the globe all the time. If it was my kid, I'd be a bit more emotionally involved, and it would be a pretty difficult thing for me if my partner wanted to abort.

I've eventually come to terms with the fact that at the end of the day, it doesn't get to be my decision.

 cincydooley wrote:
I actually agree with d-USA here, with some caveats.

I think late term abortions should require the say of both parents.

I'm in favor if the general accepted dividing line for legal abortions: viability. If a child can survive on its own then the rules change. This could easily be an emotional decision for me instead of a well thought out legal reason, but it seems to be a standard accepted across the board.

But we (pro-choice side) have to realize that using viability =/= the same magical number that has always been used. As medicine advances the window for abortions will get shorter.

 d-usa wrote:


She doesn't get to make a unilateral decision about what procedure to force on the child because the child is inside of her for 9 months, it's not a procedure for the child.

Oh, I think we a pretty clear the the procedure is definitely AGAINST the child.

 Da Boss wrote:
I am pro choice, or pro baby murder, whatever way you want to call it.

But that said, I dunno about all this messing around with language. Fetus, baby, newborn, it's semantics.

I dislike it when people say "The science says" or "the facts say".

Because in truth, science has nothing in particular to say about when a ball of genetically unique cells becomes a "person" with rights and legal protections and so on. It's not a question which is in the scope of science to answer. It's a question of philosophy and ethics, and of the kind of society we want. Science doesn't answer stuff like that. For some people, it's religion that does, for others it's a personal ethic. Demanding people "stick to the science" is a very poor argument.

For myself, I do figure that the little ball of cells is at least a potential person, but I'm okay with that person dying because I have no connection to them. This is much the same as me not having any real reaction to the thousands of deaths happening for frivolous reasons around the globe all the time. If it was my kid, I'd be a bit more emotionally involved, and it would be a pretty difficult thing for me if my partner wanted to abort.

I've eventually come to terms with the fact that at the end of the day, it doesn't get to be my decision.

Hear hear!

At first I thought I was reading something similar to A Modest Proposal, but that's giving the author entirely too much credit. I'm surprised neither of these made the rounds yet:




NSFW? V

Now gather 'round, youngins, while I dispense some ol' pappy's advice.

EVERY time you have sex with a woman, EVERY time, you are exposing yourself to the chance that you may have be involved in her life in some meaningful way for the next eighteen years and nine months.

This is due to inescapable facts of human biology, namely she has a uterus, womb, and associated baby incubating apparatus and you don't. You DO NOT have any right to help decide how or when this apparatus is used, end of story.

I am on board with abortions - we aren't running out of people and I can't find dredge up any strong feelings for potential people when I don't really care about all the actual people we have who die on a regular basis.

On the other hand, since I am willing to cede full abortion rights, I am a staunch believer in my opting out of any sort of child support or what have you. If I accidentally pop a baby in some chick and I want her to abort but she wants to keep it; fine and dandy but I am not paying for anything. I am willing to ruin my own life just to spite anyone who tries to force something like that.

jamesk1973 wrote:
I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.

It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.

When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.

The guilt has got to be crushing.

That should be the mother's choice though, it should be their decision based on their circumstances and personal morality, not dictated to them by the state or religious pressure groups. Unlike Hitler, who marched other people into the gas chambers against their will and removed people's children for extermination, pro choice people merely offer mothers freedom of choice. Pro-life people deny that freedom of choice. When pro-choice people become pro-abortion and start forcing people to undergo abortions against their will, then comparisons to Hitler are valid.

OP's article makes several absurd leaps, I thought it might be a philosophically interesting argument so was disappointed when it predictably twisted around to the abortion debate, one which I'm not going to spend my Christmas on beyond what I've written above...

I'm shocked that this thread is still going to be honest, the original premise was absolute nonsense.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.

Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.

He had the recourse of not getting her pregnant in the first place. Having done so, he can flee the country if he wants to avoid paying child maintenance.

You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.

Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.

He had the recourse of not getting her pregnant in the first place. Having done so, he can flee the country if he wants to avoid paying child maintenance.

You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.

And her? Flip tables, where the male wants the child and the female doesn't, that argument doesn't stand.

You can't flip the table, since the woman bears the child and men can't.

It's a classic HR situation. You cannot compare women's and men's child-bearing roles since they don't both exist. You therefore have to consider the position of the woman without reference to the position of the man. In legal terms, he doesn't have standing in the case.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.

Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.

He had the recourse of not getting her pregnant in the first place. Having done so, he can flee the country if he wants to avoid paying child maintenance.

You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.

That suggestion was nowhere remotely in my comment. Nowhere.

I'm suggesting men should have the option to legally "opt out" of fatherhood during the pregnancy and be afforded similar protections as a sperm donor.

That is a thought worth considering.

There is a problem in the UK with a lack of sperm donors because of the law forcing them retrospectively to become maintainers of the children created from their donations.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.

Oh please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is a thought worth considering.

There is a problem in the UK with a lack of sperm donors because of the law forcing them retrospectively to become maintainers of the children created from their donations.

All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.

It seems there is a demand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).

Adoption?

No need to kill/murder and practically guilt free.

If you wouldn't have people using manipulative language such as murder and killing there would be less guilt already. It's telling when people complain about a problem they help create.

"poor women having to live with the emotional guilt that I create and maintain..."

I have mixed feelings on this issue as I work with adults who are mentally or physically differently abled. They have such unique viewpoints and can contribute so much that I find it sad someone would be willing to undertaken an abortion on that basis alone.

I do however appreciate that it can be a very difficult challenge for parents in addition to every other challenge children go through.

As long as the potential parent or parents are making an informed choice, which I assume they are as part of the process of obtaining an abortion.

The quoted argument is terrible. I may not agree with or understand fully the stance of potential parents undertaking an abortion due to their potential child being differently abled, however I will always agree that it is their choice, or more specifically the mother's choice as to whether or not they complete the pregnancy.

I started reading thinking this was going to be about killing children born with disabilities in crazy parts of the world.

Then I found out it was about abortion and I lul'd.

The author lost all credibility when he mentioned praying for our souls.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.

Oh please.


...

Thank you for your well presented argument.

jamesk1973 wrote:
All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.

It seems there is a demand.

I don't think there are many people who are trying for a child and cannot conceive who go for an abortion instead... kind of completely the wrong medical procedure

Oh, wait, you are trying to say that people should be forced to give birth because other people can't have or have difficulty in having children.

Yeah... I don't think that is particularly appropriate...