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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Until the father (as long as it's not a rape case) gets a say, I'll be Pro Life.

But how much of a say should the man get? To be at all meaningful in the way you seem to ask, you're basically saying a man should have the power to overrule a woman's choice as to make a medical decision about her own body. Unfortunately it's the woman who carries the child, she's the one that has to undergo the operation, or carry the child. So while it would be nice if she took the father's opinion into account, she, and only she, can have the final word. You shouldn't be able to force an operation upon her, or withhold it against her wishes, and it's unacceptable for a man to attempt to do so. That's the result of a biological inequality, women carry the child.

That is the question, isn't it?

Now, I'm not saying that it should be mans say, and that's final. But it's BOTH parties' decision to have sex that night, to say that both shouldn't have a say in any consequences is wrong, in my eyes.

Mind you, I blame Murica's current Sex Education (or lack thereof) more than any Pro-Life/Pro-Choice groups and/or gender of person involved. Seriously, there are other ways to please your partner than bumping uglies......

 Da Boss wrote:
Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.

But those human lives are things that I have attached a negative emotional response to, unlike the collection of cells that becomes a human life eventually, which I have attached a positive emotional response to!

 Da Boss wrote:
Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.

A Baby hasn't had a chance to do much other than poop, eat, and cry.

Someone on Death Row has raped or murdered quite a lot of people.

It's apples and oranges.

 daedalus wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.

But those human lives are things that I have attached a negative emotional response to, unlike the collection of cells that becomes a human life eventually, which I have attached a positive emotional response to!

I'm raising my beer to you, sir. Luckily it can't be a circle jerk if I'm holding a beer in my good hand.

 djones520 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Pro-Life.

More humans means more potential hot chicks. How can you say no to that?

It also means more potential Hitlers!

Edit: Hot Hitlers?

We have our Hitler post!


But it also means more potential Einsteins, if you wanna go down that road.

Ah, but imagine all the potential Einsteins Hitler killed!

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.

A Baby hasn't had a chance to do much other than poop, eat, and cry.

Someone on Death Row has raped or murdered quite a lot of people.

It's apples and oranges.

And civilian casualties in war?

You're going to prove my point by arguing this one, by the way

 Ahtman wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility or thinking. It should not be, for lack of a better term, a cosmetic or conveinence thing.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that abortion is being mainly used to replace responsibility or thinking? That there is a trend of it being mainly cosmetic or for convenience?

Even though someone brought the wiki to it, there's something more pertinent that I'd like to ask you. Just out of curiosity.

Where in the hell in my post did I say that I said "abortion is being mainly used to replace responsibility"?

I'm checking. I'm not seeing it. Stop assigning a point to me when I don't even say it, mmmkay?

 Da Boss wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.

A Baby hasn't had a chance to do much other than poop, eat, and cry.

Someone on Death Row has raped or murdered quite a lot of people.

It's apples and oranges.

And civilian casualties in war?

You're going to prove my point by arguing this one, by the way

Which is why we do everything we can to limit them. We don't openely promote dropping napalm on civilians, because their an inconvenience to getting to the real target.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Until the father (as long as it's not a rape case) gets a say, I'll be Pro Life.

But how much of a say should the man get? To be at all meaningful in the way you seem to ask, you're basically saying a man should have the power to overrule a woman's choice as to make a medical decision about her own body. Unfortunately it's the woman who carries the child, she's the one that has to undergo the operation, or carry the child. So while it would be nice if she took the father's opinion into account, she, and only she, can have the final word. You shouldn't be able to force an operation upon her, or withhold it against her wishes, and it's unacceptable for a man to attempt to do so. That's the result of a biological inequality, women carry the child.

That is the question, isn't it?

Now, I'm not saying that it should be mans say, and that's final. But it's BOTH parties' decision to have sex that night, to say that both shouldn't have a say in any consequences is wrong, in my eyes.

The woman has to have the final say because it's her body and physical well-being, the man can have his say, but it can't hold the same weight on the outcome as the woman. Why, what input should the man have that he already doesn't? He is allowed to make his opinion known. He doesn't ever get the final say. How would you alter this and not take the power from the woman to choose whether or not she has an operation on her own body?

Personally, I'm pretty hardcore pro-choice. Religion and politics should stay seperate from a woman's choice about her own body.

 djones520 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.

A Baby hasn't had a chance to do much other than poop, eat, and cry.

Someone on Death Row has raped or murdered quite a lot of people.

It's apples and oranges.

And civilian casualties in war?

You're going to prove my point by arguing this one, by the way

Which is why we do everything we can to limit them. We don't openely promote dropping napalm on civilians, because their an inconvenience to getting to the real target.

Should the war be stopped if civilians are killed? I mean it's morally wrong to kill innocents. Surely you only use bombs because they are more convenient than a massive troop deployment which would move more carefully through the countryside?

(If you don't feel like answering this, I don't mind. I guess you can see the point I am trying to make, being a smart guy. You'll either think it is valid or think it is crap, and you're entitled to that)

Well the point your trying to make doesn't line up with the argument in the first place.

War is an entirely differant manner from abortion. Just as the death penalty is. I was just trying to point out it wasn't so black and white, but in reality, it's not even on the same color scale.

But just to put it in perspective, in regards to what your talking about. There are more abortions in the US alone, every year, then there was confirmed deaths for the entirety of the Iraq war. Nearly as many as 3 times.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Abortion should not be a replacement for responsibility or thinking. It should not be, for lack of a better term, a cosmetic or conveinence thing.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that abortion is being mainly used to replace responsibility or thinking? That there is a trend of it being mainly cosmetic or for convenience?

According to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm , in 2009 there were 784,507 abortions in the US. The majority of those were women under 30. Though reasons were not given, I strongly suspect pregnancies due to rape or incest were a tiny fraction of the pregnancies aborted, which may indicate convenience as a reason.

According to Wiki

A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion:[45]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States

Convenience seems to be a major reason....

Why do you think that is bad?

Life or Death decisions should NEVER be made on the basis of convenience.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Until the father (as long as it's not a rape case) gets a say, I'll be Pro Life.

But how much of a say should the man get? To be at all meaningful in the way you seem to ask, you're basically saying a man should have the power to overrule a woman's choice as to make a medical decision about her own body. Unfortunately it's the woman who carries the child, she's the one that has to undergo the operation, or carry the child. So while it would be nice if she took the father's opinion into account, she, and only she, can have the final word. You shouldn't be able to force an operation upon her, or withhold it against her wishes, and it's unacceptable for a man to attempt to do so. That's the result of a biological inequality, women carry the child.

That is the question, isn't it?

Now, I'm not saying that it should be mans say, and that's final. But it's BOTH parties' decision to have sex that night, to say that both shouldn't have a say in any consequences is wrong, in my eyes.

The woman has to have the final say because it's her body and physical well-being, the man can have his say, but it can't hold the same weight on the outcome as the woman. Why, what input should the man have that he already doesn't? He is allowed to make his opinion known. He doesn't ever get the final say. How would you alter this and not take the power from the woman to choose whether or not she has an operation on her own body?

Is it really "just her body" when it's the man's semen inside of her? Both parties can say "I made dis", but only one can destroy it really.

What you could do, and this is just me spitballing, is increase the price of the Abortion* should the father not be present/not have given his consent. That's one conceivable option, probably not the best, but it's one.


*Not including rape cases, and can be waived by a Judge should the father just be an ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Pro choice, because I realised a long time ago that I don't REALLY care about the deaths of people I don't know.

If you guys are so concerned with human life, there'd be a lot less support for the death penalty and war on these boards.

I'd have more respect for the uncompromising morals of the pro life side if they were a bit more consistent.

A Baby hasn't had a chance to do much other than poop, eat, and cry.

Someone on Death Row has raped or murdered quite a lot of people.

It's apples and oranges.

And civilian casualties in war?

You're going to prove my point by arguing this one, by the way

There are no civilians in war, only non-combatants.

Slarg: bs. Sophistry. Pedantry!

Jones: Yeah, I admit the comparison is not the best. But it is worth thinking about why some lives are more worthy than others, and if you really do feel as strongly about those lives. And if you do not, why don't you? Isn't it a bit hypocritical? What is the root of that hypocrisy?

In my own case, I would be extremely upset if my partner decided to abort a kid that we'd made. But I know in my heart that I'm not marching to any abortion clinics to physically stop the doctors from carrying out the surgery, so I guess I don't care about abortions in the case of other people. Raised catholic, was an altar boy even. Had to confront my inner hypocrite at some stage.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Personally, I'm pretty hardcore pro-choice. Religion and politics should stay seperate from a woman's choice about her own body.

I'm pretty close to "hard core" pro-life... and it's neither religion or politics that drives my views.

I'm a father... being a dad "changes you".

It's also recognizing the awesome responsibilities our female species has... and treat it as such.

It's like what Uncle Ben said... "Great Power comes with Great Responsibilities".

 djones520 wrote:
Life or Death decisions should NEVER be made on the basis of convenience.

Why not?

What is the basis on which you would make the decision about an abortion?

Bearing in mind you will never have the opportunity of undergoing one.

 Da Boss wrote:
Slarg: bs. Sophistry. Pedantry!

Jones: Yeah, I admit the comparison is not the best. But it is worth thinking about why some lives are more worthy than others, and if you really do feel as strongly about those lives. And if you do not, why don't you? Isn't it a bit hypocritical? What is the root of that hypocrisy?

I feel just as horribly about every civilian death in war. The choice of life and death was taken from them. They didn't ask to have a bomb dropped on them. They didn't ask to have some Sammi Jihad run into their market and blow themselves up. They are innocents, and it's horrible.

The US and it's allies take as much responsibility on their shoulders as they can in mitigating the loss of innocent life, because we recognize that. Sometimes it is necessary, and that is a sad things as well.

If we treated war like we treated abortion... well I can promise you everyone of those Taliban buggers we've spent the last 12 years trying to dig out would be dead. We wouldn't hesitate to level villages that we knew they were hiding in. But we put value on the lives of those innocents, so we don't.

When the death of an unborn person is conflated with that of a convicted murderer, the time for reasonable discussion has passed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Life or Death decisions should NEVER be made on the basis of convenience.

Why not?

What is the basis on which you would make the decision about an abortion?

Bearing in mind you will never have the opportunity of undergoing one.

Just call it for what it is... killing a baby.

As a society we need to comes to grips with what's socially acceptable. That's why there's all this mental jujitsu about fetus, blob of cells, or any other word that is not "a baby" during these discussions. Because if you replace those words with "a baby", the outcome would, imo, would be different.

It's a charming arrogance to think that you can go into something like that and make it better. I mean that truthfully. It's something about the american mindset I guess I will always find difficult to understand, coming from a militarily weak nation of chronically self obsessed underdogs.

Good answer. You made me feel bad for my argumentative tactic.
(Still doesn't change my mind though )

Edit: Monster Rain, glad you haven't faltered in your exalted role as the gatekeeper of what constitutes reasonable discussion! Keep up the good work, the strain must be terrible.

Edit 2: Whembly: I'm happy to admit that a fetus is a person from the point of fertilization. Genetically unique and all that. I just don't put as much stock in personhood as you do.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Until the father (as long as it's not a rape case) gets a say, I'll be Pro Life.

But how much of a say should the man get? To be at all meaningful in the way you seem to ask, you're basically saying a man should have the power to overrule a woman's choice as to make a medical decision about her own body. Unfortunately it's the woman who carries the child, she's the one that has to undergo the operation, or carry the child. So while it would be nice if she took the father's opinion into account, she, and only she, can have the final word. You shouldn't be able to force an operation upon her, or withhold it against her wishes, and it's unacceptable for a man to attempt to do so. That's the result of a biological inequality, women carry the child.

That is the question, isn't it?

Now, I'm not saying that it should be mans say, and that's final. But it's BOTH parties' decision to have sex that night, to say that both shouldn't have a say in any consequences is wrong, in my eyes.

The woman has to have the final say because it's her body and physical well-being, the man can have his say, but it can't hold the same weight on the outcome as the woman. Why, what input should the man have that he already doesn't? He is allowed to make his opinion known. He doesn't ever get the final say. How would you alter this and not take the power from the woman to choose whether or not she has an operation on her own body?

Is it really "just her body" when it's the man's semen inside of her? Both parties can say "I made dis", but only one can destroy it really.

What you could do, and this is just me spitballing, is increase the price of the Abortion* should the father not be present/not have given his consent. That's one conceivable option, probably not the best, but it's one.


*Not including rape cases, and can be waived by a Judge should the father just be an ass.

Yes it is 'her body', I don't care where the man's semen went. She's the one who physically has the bear the child and is the one that have to have a medical operation.

The rest is just getting ludicrous. Now you're saying that women should have to pay more for an abortion should the father not agree or not be around to attend. So financially penalise them. Unless the father isn't very nice, in which case a judge can say they don't have to pay more. Oh that just so very dumb.

You can't really answer the question as to how much sway the father should have in an abortion. You want him to have some undefined 'say' in the matter but ultimately not be able to overrule the woman. So really it's a token input, because the final decision (rightly) lies with the woman, as it does currently. But because you can't describe how much control the man should rightly have, you suggest this stupid scheme where women should effectively be fined for not getting the father in agreement. Money shouldn't be controlling people's access to abortion services. You're effectively only giving men the power to choose whether a woman aborts or not if the woman doesn't have much money.

Come up with something that has some basis in compassion and logic or give up this whole male sorry-for-yourself 'I'm pro-life unless I get a say too' attitude.

 Da Boss wrote:

Edit 2: Whembly: I'm happy to admit that a fetus is a person from the point of fertilization. Genetically unique and all that. I just don't put as much stock in personhood as you do.

Very confused that you're making a distinction between "fetus is a person" vs "personhood".

Personhood is another one of those made up words in place of a "baby".

 Monster Rain wrote:
When the death of an unborn person is conflated with that of a convicted murderer, the time for reasonable discussion has passed.

You're right, this is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. The "unborn person" is a blob of meat with less brain function and ability to suffer than a cockroach, while the convicted murder is a person that has both of those things and isn't even guaranteed to have committed the crime they are executed for. So I demand that people stop trying to elevate mindless blobs of meat to the same level as convicted murderers.

I hate babies, so the pro-choice thing becomes easier for me it's still fethed up though when you hear of crazy stories of a fully developed baby being aborted so get your abortions as early as possible.

 whembly wrote:
As a society we need to comes to grips with what's socially acceptable. That's why there's all this mental jujitsu about fetus, blob of cells, or any other word that is not "a baby" during these discussions. Because if you replace those words with "a baby", the outcome would, imo, would be different.

It would be different if we made that blatant appeal to emotion, but it wouldn't be correct. A baby is not the same thing as a blob of four cells, and the only reason to use the term "baby" to describe it is to evoke the image of an actual fully-developed and born child (preferably a cute and helpless one) and use it to get someone to react emotionally instead of rationally.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As a society we need to comes to grips with what's socially acceptable. That's why there's all this mental jujitsu about fetus, blob of cells, or any other word that is not "a baby" during these discussions. Because if you replace those words with "a baby", the outcome would, imo, would be different.

It would be different if we made that blatant appeal to emotion, but it wouldn't be correct. A baby is not the same thing as a blob of four cells, and the only reason to use the term "baby" to describe it is to evoke the image of an actual fully-developed and born child (preferably a cute and helpless one) and use it to get someone to react emotionally instead of rationally.

I think in Canada you become a person after birth, although I could have made that up.

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Edit 2: Whembly: I'm happy to admit that a fetus is a person from the point of fertilization. Genetically unique and all that. I just don't put as much stock in personhood as you do.

Very confused that you're making a distinction between "fetus is a person" vs "personhood".

Personhood is another one of those made up words in place of a "baby".

I'm not making a distinction. I'm just saying, I am okay with other people killing their babies in many situations. That's not to say it makes me happy or I would want it to happen to my kid, or the kid of someone I knew, or someone who was related to me. I have just accepted that if I really thought that it was so morally wrong, such a serious crime, I'd get up off my ass and do more about it than being judgemental at people. I don't feel empathy for unborn children for various irrelevant reasons, the same as I don't feel empathy for loads of the people dying in horrible ways around the world. You can make me feel empathy for them by telling me more about them and their lives, so I can relate to them, but unfortunately for babies, that doesn't really work with them. As soon as the baby is born it is more relatable I guess, so I am more outraged by people killing them at that stage.

It's an odd thing to admit, but I believe it is true for a lot of people. I also believe many of the arguments of the pro choice side are scientifically and intellectually dishonest, simply because facing up to this double standard is difficult.

But hey. Maybe I'm the only person who really feels like that and everyone else is right. In the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant, and I only started posting in this thread because it asked my opinion and everybody loves sharing those.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Until the father (as long as it's not a rape case) gets a say, I'll be Pro Life.

But how much of a say should the man get? To be at all meaningful in the way you seem to ask, you're basically saying a man should have the power to overrule a woman's choice as to make a medical decision about her own body. Unfortunately it's the woman who carries the child, she's the one that has to undergo the operation, or carry the child. So while it would be nice if she took the father's opinion into account, she, and only she, can have the final word. You shouldn't be able to force an operation upon her, or withhold it against her wishes, and it's unacceptable for a man to attempt to do so. That's the result of a biological inequality, women carry the child.

That is the question, isn't it?

Now, I'm not saying that it should be mans say, and that's final. But it's BOTH parties' decision to have sex that night, to say that both shouldn't have a say in any consequences is wrong, in my eyes.

The woman has to have the final say because it's her body and physical well-being, the man can have his say, but it can't hold the same weight on the outcome as the woman. Why, what input should the man have that he already doesn't? He is allowed to make his opinion known. He doesn't ever get the final say. How would you alter this and not take the power from the woman to choose whether or not she has an operation on her own body?

Is it really "just her body" when it's the man's semen inside of her? Both parties can say "I made dis", but only one can destroy it really.

What you could do, and this is just me spitballing, is increase the price of the Abortion* should the father not be present/not have given his consent. That's one conceivable option, probably not the best, but it's one.


*Not including rape cases, and can be waived by a Judge should the father just be an ass.

Yes it is 'her body', I don't care where the man's semen went. She's the one who physically has the bear the child and is the one that have to have a medical operation.

The rest is just getting ludicrous. Now you're saying that women should have to pay more for an abortion should the father not agree or not be around to attend. So financially penalise them. Unless the father isn't very nice, in which case a judge can say they don't have to pay more. Oh that just so very dumb.

You can't really answer the question as to how much sway the father should have in an abortion. You want him to have some undefined 'say' in the matter but ultimately not be able to overrule the woman. So really it's a token input, because the final decision (rightly) lies with the woman, as it does currently. But because you can't describe how much control the man should rightly have, you suggest this stupid scheme where women should effectively be fined for not getting the father in agreement. Money shouldn't be controlling people's access to abortion services. You're effectively only giving men the power to choose whether a woman aborts or not if the woman doesn't have much money.

Come up with something that has some basis in compassion and logic or give up this whole male sorry-for-yourself 'I'm pro-life unless I get a say too' attitude.

You seem to think it's because of something for a "male is sorry for himself" type of thing.

What about the kid? Maybe you don't have to see gak like "Lol, pregnant, 75 likes and I'll keep it!" on facebook too often, but yes, those people need to have less of a say about a baby being aborted.

And if the mother doesn't have enough money, and the father is a douche who is "controlling her access to the abortion service", then the judge can step in and say "No, she can if she wants". Just like say, child support services, custody, or anything else that the judge already presides over.

Also, should Smokers not have to pay more taxes? It's "their body" after all, why does the government get to say "You shall pay more money" on that account?