Abortion

This will be fun.

A fetus does not count as being sentient, and things not sentient do not have rights, let alone rights to life.
At the same time, the growth of a fetus requires the body of the mother. It requires resources -- vitamins, blood, antibodies, hormones, literally everything that it takes to make a human child. It absorbs these from the mother, and causes all of a financial, mental, and physical burden. A person should have a right to their own blood, hormones, vitamins, or other body chemicals. If you wanted to drain the blood in your left leg, you should have the right to be able to do that. If you want to stop any of you from being absorbed by a non-sentient fetus, you should have that right.

Not that I can't sympathize with the emotional attachment involved with the opposing viewpoint. I just don't empathize with non-sentient things. It is sentience that makes life, social bonding, and meaning. Not just eukaryotic cells.

I don't care either way. Lately Atheists have been annoying me so I like to take sides in opposition of there's so I guess I don't support abortion.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

I don't care either way. Lately Atheists have been annoying me so I like to take sides in opposition of there's so I guess I don't support abortion.

You should side with women's rights activists/Planned Parenthood, since both equality and sex are awesome. And definitely better than whatever atheists have done that's annoying.

I agree with you on this topic. By definition a fetus would end up having to be catagorized as a parasite. It lives in your body, at times without you knowing, living off of your nutrients and blood and your life force in general. The fact that it is part of you is null and infact only adds to the fact that you should be able to have it removed if you wanted to.

Charles Stover wrote:

You should side with women's rights activists/Planned Parenthood, since both equality and sex are awesome. And definitely better than whatever atheists have done that's annoying.

True.
I guess I'm pretty neutral on it that case.... If it came down to a vote I'd vote for it. But I wouldn't be vocal about it

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

True.
I guess I'm pretty neutral on it that case.... If it came down to a vote I'd vote for it. But I wouldn't be vocal about it

That's pretty much how I used to feel until I realized all pro-life stances are essentially "fetuses have souls" or "fetuses are alive [for no scientifically justifiable reason]." I empathize with their emotional reaction to abortion, but I don't agree with what essentially amounts to their belief dictating law that affects people with different beliefs.

Charles Stover wrote:

That's pretty much how I used to feel until I realized all pro-life stances are essentially "fetuses have souls" or "fetuses are alive [for no scientifically justifiable reason]." I empathize with their emotional reaction to abortion, but I don't agree with what essentially amounts to their belief dictating law that affects people with different beliefs.

I definitely agree with you there.

I don't scramble eggs with the thought of a chick being alive in there.
At that point it's nothing at all.

Whether you keep it or not is up to you, I don't judge.
I'm pro-choice.

Eh, I don't care either way. I agree with abortion, because it was a major factor in lowering the 90s crime wave (Its in a really cool book I read, let me go try to find it) and it keeps some kids from growing up in bad environments. I also agree with it because women who are raped don't have to live with the son or daughter of a rapist, but I also disagree with it because some men just get a woman pregnant and then go "lol whups lets just get an abortion" and are horrible dads like that. It's like seriously, be responsible and just wear a condom, god damn.

Honestly, I feel like abortion isn't a "evil" or bad thing.
It's really up to whoever has the child, and it's their decision.
And honestly...

It really depends on your perspective on life. (Life is suffering?)

I don't think your opinion on if a fetus is a person or not matters.
I think that the state doesn't have the right to tell you what you can and cant do in this regard. I do however feel that what is at the least potentially a human life ought to be afforded some sort of dignity. If you have a late term abortion and the fetus/baby survives I don't feel that the go to option should be leaving it to slowly die in a room. You wouldn' t do that to a dog, which arguable is on the same level as a such a thing.
I also think that abortions shouldn't be done in such a fast food manner. Studies show that most women that have them suffer emotional and psychologically, plus the trauma is pretty hard on their bodies . Aside from that the fathers and family are usually affected. So there should be some mandatory outpatient care and therapy in my opinion.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

I don't think your opinion on if a fetus is a person or not matters.
I think that the state doesn't have the right to tell you what you can and cant do in this regard. I do however feel that what is at the least potentially a human life ought to be afforded some sort of dignity. If you have a late term abortion and the fetus/baby survives I don't feel that the go to option should be leaving it to slowly die in a room. You wouldn' t do that to a dog, which arguable is on the same level as a such a thing.
I also think that abortions shouldn't be done in such a fast food manner. Studies show that most women that have them suffer emotional and psychologically, plus the trauma is pretty hard on their bodies . Aside from that the fathers and family are usually affected. So there should be some mandatory outpatient care and therapy in my opinion.

Yes. I don't think it's a form of birth control. I think it's a last resort.

Well , Abortion is wrong / right , its right if someone was rapped and got pregnate from being raped , but its wrong if you had sex for fun and didnt use protection , , there are to many things i could say about this topic , but im just going to leave it at that.

Flareboy323 wrote:

Eh, I don't care either way. I agree with abortion, because it was a major factor in lowering the 90s crime wave (Its in a really cool book I read, let me go try to find it) and it keeps some kids from growing up in bad environments. I also agree with it because women who are raped don't have to live with the son or daughter of a rapist, but I also disagree with it because some men just get a woman pregnant and then go "lol whups lets just get an abortion" and are horrible dads like that. It's like seriously, be responsible and just wear a condom, god damn.

I don't believe that statistic slipped my mind, but this is very true. There is a pretty convincing negative correlation between the legalization of abortion and a crime rates. I think it's a beautiful bit of data.

I also disagree with it because some men just get a woman pregnant and then go "lol whups lets just get an abortion" and are horrible dads like that. It's like seriously, be responsible and just wear a condom, god damn.

Women are also choosing to have sex without a condom, you know. Sex isn't male-oriented.
I think a bigger issue is when a man uses a condom, a woman uses birth control, and she still gets pregnant. I know someone who that has happened to three times (due to ovarian cancer absorbing the birth control and the condoms breaking). That's why I can't stand the "she doesn't deserve an abortion because she wasn't careful enough" argument to outlaw it.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

I don't think your opinion on if a fetus is a person or not matters.
I think that the state doesn't have the right to tell you what you can and cant do in this regard.

It's entirely relevant. The state most definitely has the right to tell you how you can and cannot infringe on the rights of others. That's the point of a state. If a fetus is a person, it has rights to be enforced by the state. If a fetus is not a person, it does not have rights.

I do however feel that what is at the least potentially a human life ought to be afforded some sort of dignity. If you have a late term abortion and the fetus/baby survives I don't feel that the go to option should be leaving it to slowly die in a room. You wouldn' t do that to a dog, which arguable is on the same level as a such a thing.

Is that something we even do? Late-term abortions aren't even legal, so I'm very skeptical that the official procedure for handling them is to leave a breathing entity to die in a room.

I also think that abortions shouldn't be done in such a fast food manner. Studies show that most women that have them suffer emotional and psychologically, plus the trauma is pretty hard on their bodies . Aside from that the fathers and family are usually affected. So there should be some mandatory outpatient care and therapy in my opinion.

I don't believe they are performed in a "fast food" manner. And why should therapy be mandatory? What if someone doesn't need it? Making it mandatory is like condemning their behavior. "You will have a psychological problem with this because it is wrong." It should be optional. It is optional, only the therapy is third-party. Abortion clinics should offer therapy services, but even then I imagine the expense of having a personal therapist would draw no customers.

do you get laid

Charles Stover wrote:

You should side with women's rights activists/Planned Parenthood, since both equality and sex are awesome. And definitely better than whatever atheists have done that's annoying.

jackisback wrote:

do you get laid

Duh? I don't understand your implication. Do you think women don't like feminist men? Because gb2highchoolnoob.

jackisback wrote:

do you get laid

I lol'd. Feminism is funny to me.

Flareboy323 wrote:

I lol'd. Feminism is funny to me.

You mean funny in that it's so obviously the correct mindset that you have to laugh to stop yourself from crying over the reality that there are people who are sexist? Because haha. Funny.

Charles Stover wrote:

It's entirely relevant. The state most definitely has the right to tell you how you can and cannot infringe on the rights of others. That's the point of a state. If a fetus is a person, it has rights to be enforced by the state. If a fetus is not a person, it does not have rights.

Is that something we even do? Late-term abortions aren't even legal, so I'm very skeptical that the official procedure for handling them is to leave a breathing entity to die in a room.

I don't think the state should make the call of if a fetus is a person or not since it has religious implications. You ought to leave it to the individual to decide. If the state is going to make a call I think it would have to be something middle of the road, such as "the fetus is not a person guaranteed rights but the potential of a person guaranteed rights and there for deserves the respect and dignity that entails." Even then the outcry from the religious would be fierce.

In saying late term, I'm referring to what is legal as in the later part of the period of time during pregnancy where it is legal to have an abortion. Which is not clear on my part, I do apologize.
It is procedure. It's been an issue discussed politically recently. Obama was accused of supporting it not all that long ago, maybe it was during the election. A fair number of fetuses survive certain abortion techniques and end up "delivered" andprocedure is to kill them, one of the methods is to just leave them to die. It's apparently more difficult to deal with emotionally to kill the fetus outside of the mother than in it.
Which regardless of method, where do you draw the line of person-hood? If th fetus can survive and function in the same capacity as a new born or even premature baby and the doctor failed to kill it on the first attempt should they still be a go to kill it now?
Legally speaking we're all kinds of confused abut it. If I kill a pregnant woman and the unborn dies I get charged with double homicide but abortion is ok.

Is it condemning the behavior? After a cop soots a suspect, regardless of the situation they receive a psych evaluation and are offered therapy. Sometimes they are given mandatory therapy if they are particularly traumatized. Legally, ethically the fetus may not be a person but upon the chemical cocktail that goes off in expecting parents makes abortion have similar metal effect to having to kill a person. It seems we ought to take similar measures to ensure those that have abortions are alright.

Charles Stover wrote:

It absorbs these from the mother, and causes all of a financial, mental, and physical burden. A person should have a right to their own blood, hormones, vitamins, or other body chemicals.

In that case, since it applies in 2 out of 3 points, shouldn't men be able to force women to abort their child, or free them from any sort of responsibility?

Raivu wrote:

I don't scramble eggs with the thought of a chick being alive in there.

That's so not how babies work...

Drakonid wrote:

In that case, since it applies in 2 out of 3 points, shouldn't men be able to force women to abort their child, or free them from any sort of responsibility?

I think child support is a different moral issue entirely. The right to your own body supersedes the right to not have to pay for a child you helped create through personal irresponsibility. There are way too many variables regarding child support to cloud the topic of abortion rights with it.

You don't know what the baby could become.

True. Could be the next Hitler. Better nip it in the bud just to be sure.

Charles Stover wrote:

I think child support is a different moral issue entirely. The right to your own body supersedes the right to not have to pay for a child you helped create through personal irresponsibility. There are way too many variables regarding child support to cloud the topic of abortion rights with it.

It sounds like a double standard to me...
Not surprising from someone to claims to be a feminist.

Feel absolutely free to present any reason how that is even remotely a double standard.

Ad hominem more. Not surprising from someone who's position has no logic behind it.

You got me there, I didn't even read the post. Also, I thought you said Ad hominem no more. That following sentence is rather confusing.
Now, I never said it doesn't. I'm not saying women can't abort the child and it's their own body and blah blah blah, but if the woman choses to keep the baby, that's their choice and if the man choses to not raise it, he shouldn't be forced to maintain it.

It is unfortunate yes, but realistically, if a child is in a home with a single parent income in this economy, they are very likely to not develop healthily. Safe environments aside (with safer living spaces costing more), we're talking food, clothing, health costs. Maybe if you are capable of thinking that health isn't a human right, that doesn't bother you, but if your child's health suffers because you don't want to contribute to a life you caused, you're kind of a douche. An abortion hurts a fetus, not a child. Not paying child support hurts a child, not a fetus. They're not really analogous. I don't think child support should be mandatory in many cases. If some woman who is a millionaire has a kid without the permission of the father, I don't see any reason he should have to pay child support whatsoever. And obviously "forced abortions" are a ridiculous option.
If you think child support should be spread across the nation/state/city as a whole instead of put on a single person, I'd say that's a valid suggestion. It'd make an especially good state-level policy. But pretending innocent people's health aren't at risk under entirely fixable circumstances is willful self-deceit.

Charles Stover wrote:

It is unfortunate yes, but realistically, if a child is in a home with a single parent income in this economy, they are very likely to not develop healthily. Safe environments aside (with safer living spaces costing more), we're talking food, clothing, health costs. Maybe if you are capable of thinking that health isn't a human right, that doesn't bother you, but if your child's health suffers because you don't want to contribute to a life you caused, you're kind of a douche. An abortion hurts a fetus, not a child. Not paying child support hurts a child, not a fetus. They're not really analogous. I don't think child support should be mandatory in many cases. If some woman who is a millionaire has a kid without the permission of the father, I don't see any reason he should have to pay child support whatsoever. And obviously "forced abortions" are a ridiculous option.
If you think child support should be spread across the nation/state/city as a whole instead of put on a single person, I'd say that's a valid suggestion. It'd make an especially good state-level policy. But pretending innocent people's health aren't at risk under entirely fixable circumstances is willful self-deceit.

I'm not saying that supporting the kid is not the right thing to do, I'm saying he shouldn't be legally forced to do it.

If you have a valid alternative, I'm all ears.

Like I said, not having to pay it in the case where the woman is financially better off than the man and taking it out of city tax dollars are both valid alternatives. "Outlaw abortion" and "forced abortions" are not.

Charles Stover wrote:

True. Could be the next Hitler. Better nip it in the bud just to be sure.

Or the person who could cure cancer.

ya bish wrote:

Or the person who could cure cancer.

Or the single-handed destroyer of the world. Or the anti-Christ.

Charles Stover wrote:

Or the single-handed destroyer of the world. Or the anti-Christ.

So many options, you got a chance. Why not them ?

ya bish wrote:

So many options, you got a chance. Why not them ?

Because, why them?

Are you against condoms too?

Charles Stover wrote:

Because, why them?

Are you against condoms too?

That makes no sense I'm against abortions so that means I'm for condom. Condoms will reduce the amount of abortions.

Your justification for being against abortion is that you aren't giving a fetus the chance to develop.

Condom use is not giving a sperm the chance to develop.

Your position is the one that makes no sense. How does condom use not fall under your exact same argument? So many options, you got a chance. Why not them?

First, other than killing millions of jews, Hitler was a great leader.
Second, the sperm is already fully developed...

Charles Stover wrote:

Your justification for being against abortion is that you aren't giving a fetus the chance to develop.

Condom use is not giving a sperm the chance to develop.

Your position is the one that makes no sense. How does condom use not fall under your exact same argument? So many options, you got a chance. Why not them?

No mine actually makes sense, if you use condoms less abortions its simple. My position is backed by logic. I dont care much about abortion, but the logical answer will be to go for condoms.

ya bish wrote:

No mine actually makes sense, if you use condoms less abortions its simple. My position is backed by logic. I dont care much about abortion, but the logical answer will be to go for condoms.

Except you said the reason abortion is wrong is because you aren't giving something a chance at life.
If you use condoms, there is less abortions, yes. When we were talking about why less abortions is a good thing, you said, "You had a chance, why not give them one?"
Using condoms is not superior to having an abortion when the downside to having an abortion is not giving something a chance at life, since condoms also have that exact same effect.

Is that articulate enough for you? There is no logic to that. You are essentially saying "condoms are better because abortions are worse." You haven't justified why we should have less abortions, and more importantly why abortion should be illegal just because you want less of them to happen.

Personally I'm pro-choice. The reason being if I was ever put in a situation like that I know I wouldn't be emotionally or financially able to take care of a child. That's with out bring into question my horrible genes which is part of the reason I don't want to have a child. I think every and any women should have the right to be able to make that decision. Besides there are way too many unwanted children. I think in some case it's better to not be born than be born into an abusive or neglectful environment.