Oppinions on abortion?

[Neurotic Pandas]

And if that fails?

Then it sucks to be a fetus, quite frankly.

Or, he could go and warn the police about it, leading to the women's arrest, of course. alternatively, he could not go to the police and be partly responsible for, as you put it, "killing a child" aka murder.

Being the father of the fetus, makes both him and the mother responsible for it.

Imagine the legal framework that would have to be built though...

[-St George]

I really hope he has a source.

Any semen that gets onto the vulva, even if there is no vaginal penetration, can make its way inside and fertilize the egg.

The anus isn't apart of the vulva.

[Nulono]

And if that fails?

Then it sucks to be a fetus, quite frankly.

Or, he could go and warn the police about it, leading to the women's arrest, of course. alternatively, he could not go to the police and be partly responsible for, as you put it, "killing a child" aka murder.

Being the father of the fetus, makes both him and the mother responsible for it.

Imagine the legal framework that would have to be built though...

Okay, then what are the police supposed to do with that information?

Any semen that gets onto the vulva, even if there is no vaginal penetration, can make its way inside and fertilize the egg.

The anus isn't apart of the vulva.

It's pretty close to it, though.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I said that it's wrong to kill a human being. I never claimed abortion was murder.

No, indeed. You don't believe that excising tumors should be punished by law, though, do you?

The beauty of you getting so wrapped up in the wording, is that you apparently have lost sight of the forest because of all those damned trees in the way.

No, it is accurate. I am asking women not to kill their children.

"Don't touch my food or I'll fucking break your legs" is not me 'asking' you not to interfere with my plate.

And never sleep, or go to the bathroom? What, should he put her on a leash?

Why not?

You've got her bound to carry an unwanted pregnancy. At least the guy in your scenario has little medical risk, and none of the discomfort.

No...

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt.

"Terminating a pregnancy" is a statement of fact. "Murdering a child" is an appeal to emotion. Do you honestly not see the difference, even with my help?

[Nulono]

No, I said that it's wrong to kill a human being. I never claimed abortion was murder.

No, indeed. You don't believe that excising tumors should be punished by law, though, do you?

The beauty of you getting so wrapped up in the wording, is that you apparently have lost sight of the forest because of all those damned trees in the way.

A tumor isn't a human being, Einstein.

No, it is accurate. I am asking women not to kill their children.

"Don't touch my food or I'll fucking break your legs" is not me 'asking' you not to interfere with my plate.

Actually, it is.

And never sleep, or go to the bathroom? What, should he put her on a leash?

Why not?

You've got her bound to carry an unwanted pregnancy. At least the guy in your scenario has little medical risk, and none of the discomfort.

I'm asking the mother not to kill the child. I fail to see why the father, more than anyone else, should have to be constantly vigilant in the child's defense.

No...

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt.

"Terminating a pregnancy" is a statement of fact. "Murdering a child" is an appeal to emotion. Do you honestly not see the difference, even with my help?

"Terminating a pregnancy" is a statement of fact. "Killing a child" is also a statement of fact, and a more relevant fact at that, as the killing is what I object to, not the end of the pregnancy.

I'm gonna have to take a break for a while, because I'm really losing my patience with y'all.

[Neurotic Pandas]

Okay, then what are the police supposed to do with that information?

Do I have to think out your entire pro-life stuff for you?

as for your question, read this sentence again;

Or, he could go and warn the police about it, leading to the women's arrest

Because planning a to kill a child, would be a planned murder, and last time I checked, planning a murder is still something for which you can get arrested.

[Wiztopia]

Do you want men to die from unsafe rape, arson, or murder? Um, I'm pretty sure that only one character on the show was pregnant. What are you asking for, Schrödinger's abortion?

Which has nothing to do with what I said. You want them to die from unsafe abortions because you want to make abortion harder to get.

2 apparently.

[UCUMAY]

Do you want men to die from unsafe rape, arson, or murder? Um, I'm pretty sure that only one character on the show was pregnant. What are you asking for, Schrödinger's abortion?

Those effect social cohesion. Abortion does not.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Do you want men to die from unsafe rape, arson, or murder? Um, I'm pretty sure that only one character on the show was pregnant. What are you asking for, Schrödinger's abortion?

Which has nothing to do with what I said. You want them to die from unsafe abortions because you want to make abortion harder to get.

2 apparently.

I am pretty sure no matter how unsafe the abortion is, a man will die from it. [Emphasis added on OP]

[Wiztopia]

Which has nothing to do with what I said. You want them to die from unsafe abortions because you want to make abortion harder to get.

2 apparently.

I am pretty sure no matter how unsafe the abortion is, a man will die from it. [Emphasis added on OP]

No man dies from abortion.

[Grave_n_idle]

A tumor isn't a human being, Einstein.

Neither is a ten-week foetus, Oppenheimer.

Why are we calling each other by the names of prominent scientists?

I'm asking the mother not to kill the child. I fail to see why the father, more than anyone else, should have to be constantly vigilant in the child's defense.

Indeed. Compelled behaviour is only for women.

*nods*

I'm gonna have to take a break for a while, because I'm really losing my patience with y'all.

Indeed. I'm sick of your hypocrisy too.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

1. Because birth is the threshold of legally being a person, endowed with all rights any other child has in whatever country they were born. Usually this includes the right to life, at least in Western nations. You can't kill people, that's murder. I don't have the desire to argue that this threshold should be bumped up to, say, 1 year old.
2. No. Agreeing that life begins at conception and saying it's a given ethical fact that having an abortion is wrong are two different claims that don't necessarily relate to each other. Also, I've never made a value judgement on the ethics of abortion, (actually I might have, but my ethical opinion on abortion is as irrelevant as yours is anyway), my only claim is there is no logical reason for it to be illegal.
4. It's not a justification for abortion. It's a justification for your argument's irrelevance. You claim fetus's have right to life; I can demostrate they don't. Demonstrating they shouldn't have one at all is different.
7. The fetus uses the same nutrients and oxygen as the mother. It is physically connected to her body through the umbilical cord. Biologically, a fetus IS a part of her body, just as much so as her hands and legs are. The problem is, one way or another, someone's "rights" are going to be infringed. It really comes down to the fact that it is worse to infringe on the rights of a grown adult than it is to infringe on the "rights" of an underdeveloped lump of cells incapable of thought and feeling. Not counting the numerous additional strains placed on the healthcare, social security, welfare, and foster care systems, among others. So you can call them people all you want, and I'll just say, I guess can make that point. But they're people that as far as I'm concerned it should be legally ok to slaughter; in the millions if people so decide to. Whether or not it is actually right or wrong and whether or not it they actually are or are not people isn't the point. The thing is for this to be legal, they can't be considered people; other wise it would legally be homicide. Therefore, fetuses can't be people.


Actually, abortions just make for bad tv. The show has a certain playout. Girl gets pregnant, has to deal with family, friends, and the father. She has to find a way to support the child, and to keep up with school. Throw in a deadbeat dad or something and you got a good solid 30-60 min chunk of D+ programming. Alternatively, girl gets pregnant, girl has abortion isn't (usually) quite so dramatic and doesn't fill out the timeslot as nicely. Besides, who actually likes watching abortions?

1. Again, something being the law doesn't make it right.
2. Are you denying the direct quote that I posted? You said that life beginning at conception is, quote, "not a given fact and is only subjectively true".
4. I claim that the fetus has a right to live, and you point out that the law doesn't recognize this right. This is doesn't mean the law is right, just that it is.
7. I'm not sure I follow. First of all, it's factually untrue that the fetus is part of the mother. Dependent, yes, but not part of. Secondly, putting strain on social services does NOT negate one's right to live. On the third hand, those last two sentences boil down to "It should be legal because the law says so.".
8. That is correct, just like the professor couldn't build a boat on Gilligan's Island. It would make for a very short show. It does not, however, make the show "anti-choice".

1. You're missing the point. One, right and wrong has nothing to do with anything, and I have no intention of trying to prove legalized abortion is "right" from an ethical standpoint. Two, the reason I DO agree with the law on what constitues being personhood is because of such things like woman's rights vs fetus, strain on social services, etc. I'm sure you're well versed in those by now. That's why birth should be the threshold.
2. Life, from an ethics standpoint, does not necessarily begin at conception. The case can easily be made there is nothing wrong with fetal termination. From a strict biological definition, life begins at conception. An embryo is at least as alive as any sort of protozoa or what have you out there. Is that clear enough for you?
4. Legally, they have no right. Ethically, that right is subjective at best. I claim that a woman's right to her own body trumps an unthinking lump of cell's right to live. I have every ounce as much evidence for my claim as you do. But mine does not have the added stigma of forcing pregnancy on women and not putting additional strain on an already overburdened social system. The only contribution your claim makes to society is that it protects the rights of unthinking cells that don't even know they exist.
7. You're right; putting a strain on social services alone does not negate the right to live. Putting a strain on social services, violating a woman's right's to her own body, and lacking any of the cognitive faculties that makes humans human does. ANd no the last two sentences do not boil down to "It should be legal because the law says so". They're a retroactive justification of the current law based on the above reasoning. Honestly a it was little bit unnecessary.

[Marcheria]

Some of the people in this thread.


Like it or not, we NEED abortion. Does this world need any more children? We're overpopulated and draining resources at an alarming rate. Seven billion people on this planet and counting. There is simply not enough space and not enough resources. We need abortions if we are to survive, coupled with comprehensive sex education for children of all ages that promotes contraceptives. And don't pull my pud with stories about abstinence, that never works. You simply can't overcome natural human desires. Abortion must be legal across the board if we are to continue existing as a species.

[Fellrike]

I didn't answer this question because I'm among the majority of Americans, who would neither ban abortion altogether, nor permit it without restrictions. If a woman has a good reason, she should be able to get an abortion. But I don't want it used as a form of birth control.

[Wiztopia]

I didn't answer this question because I'm among the majority of Americans, who would neither ban abortion altogether, nor permit it without restrictions. If a woman has a good reason, she should be able to get an abortion. But I don't want it used as a form of birth control.

That never happens so it wouldn't matter if abortion is legal for whatever reason.

[Nulono]

Okay, then what are the police supposed to do with that information?

Do I have to think out your entire pro-life stuff for you?

as for your question, read this sentence again;

Or, he could go and warn the police about it, leading to the women's arrest

Because planning a to kill a child, would be a planned murder, and last time I checked, planning a murder is still something for which you can get arrested.

They arrest her, and then what, keep her strapped to a table?

Do you want men to die from unsafe rape, arson, or murder? Um, I'm pretty sure that only one character on the show was pregnant. What are you asking for, Schrödinger's abortion?

Which has nothing to do with what I said. You want them to die from unsafe abortions because you want to make abortion harder to get.

2 apparently.

You want men to die from rape because you want to keep rape hard to do. You want people to die from arson because you want to make arson harder to commit.

Do you want men to die from unsafe rape, arson, or murder? Um, I'm pretty sure that only one character on the show was pregnant. What are you asking for, Schrödinger's abortion?

Those effect social cohesion. Abortion does not.

Not necessarily. We had a rather cohesive society when the husband was considered head of the household, and spousal rape wasn't even considered rape. Many societies throughout history have allowed the killing of various segments of humanity that they deemed unworthy of legal protection, be they infants or slaves or certain races.

A tumor isn't a human being, Einstein.

Neither is a ten-week foetus, Oppenheimer.

Why are we calling each other by the names of prominent scientists?

No, the fetus is a human being, a member of the species H. sapiens. A tumor is no more a human being than my tongue is.

I'm asking the mother not to kill the child. I fail to see why the father, more than anyone else, should have to be constantly vigilant in the child's defense.

Indeed. Compelled behaviour is only for women.

*nods*

Forbidden behavior, not compelled behavior. And it's forbidden for everyone.

I'm gonna have to take a break for a while, because I'm really losing my patience with y'all.

Indeed. I'm sick of your hypocrisy too.

I'm no hypocrite. You are conflating two very different things. I don't have to adopt children to oppose killing them.

1. You're missing the point. One, right and wrong has nothing to do with anything, and I have no intention of trying to prove legalized abortion is "right" from an ethical standpoint. Two, the reason I DO agree with the law on what constitues being personhood is because of such things like woman's rights vs fetus, strain on social services, etc. I'm sure you're well versed in those by now. That's why birth should be the threshold.
2. Life, from an ethics standpoint, does not necessarily begin at conception. The case can easily be made there is nothing wrong with fetal termination. From a strict biological definition, life begins at conception. An embryo is at least as alive as any sort of protozoa or what have you out there. Is that clear enough for you?
4. Legally, they have no right. Ethically, that right is subjective at best. I claim that a woman's right to her own body trumps an unthinking lump of cell's right to live. I have every ounce as much evidence for my claim as you do. But mine does not have the added stigma of forcing pregnancy on women and not putting additional strain on an already overburdened social system. The only contribution your claim makes to society is that it protects the rights of unthinking cells that don't even know they exist.
7. You're right; putting a strain on social services alone does not negate the right to live. Putting a strain on social services, violating a woman's right's to her own body, and lacking any of the cognitive faculties that makes humans human does. ANd no the last two sentences do not boil down to "It should be legal because the law says so". They're a retroactive justification of the current law based on the above reasoning. Honestly a it was little bit unnecessary.

1. If you're arguing based on the mother's rights, you ARE arguing ethics. So far as strain on social services, that could be used to justify killing much more than unwanted unborn children. So could the mother's rights.
2. Life is a biological concept, not an ethical one. You can argue that personhood or rights don't begin at conception, but life beginning at conception is an objective fact.
4. Since when does "knowing you exist" determine your right to live? Even born children don't develop this until 18 months after birth.
7. Cognitive ability does not "make humans human". You don't become more human the smarter you get, and the mentally handicapped are not subhuman. A woman has a right to her own body, but the fetus has a right to live, and an abortion would violate this right. Strain on social services is completely irrelevant when it comes to one's right to live. And those sentences certainly did boil down to "It should be legal because the law says so"; if you're arguing that the unborn should not have legal protection because they are not legal persons, that is EXACTLY what you're arguing.

Some of the people in this thread.


Like it or not, we NEED abortion. Does this world need any more children? We're overpopulated and draining resources at an alarming rate. Seven billion people on this planet and counting. There is simply not enough space and not enough resources. We need abortions if we are to survive, coupled with comprehensive sex education for children of all ages that promotes contraceptives. And don't pull my pud with stories about abstinence, that never works. You simply can't overcome natural human desires. Abortion must be legal across the board if we are to continue existing as a species.

Why stop at birth, then? I'm pretty sure that there are more born people on this planet than unborn people, so we could make quite a dent in the overpopulation problem by slaughtering born people by the millions. If abortion of a 9-week fetus should be legal because of overpopulation, why not infanticide of an 8-week preemie?

I didn't answer this question because I'm among the majority of Americans, who would neither ban abortion altogether, nor permit it without restrictions. If a woman has a good reason, she should be able to get an abortion. But I don't want it used as a form of birth control.

That never happens so it wouldn't matter if abortion is legal for whatever reason.

Actually, it happens. It's not at all commonplace, but it happens.
PRO-TIP: It's generally a bad idea to say something "never" happens, as one example can prove you wrong.

[Esternial]

As long as the unborn fetus is dependant on its mother to survive (eg. nourishment, oxygen), abortion should be allowed.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, the fetus is a human being, a member of the species H. sapiens. A tumor is no more a human being than my tongue is.

Indeed. A foetus is no more a human life than your tongue is. Point well made, despite the fact that your wording got confused.

Forbidden behavior, not compelled behavior. And it's forbidden for everyone.

Except men.

Only women are compelled to spend the 9 months tied to the punishment for their mistake. Your casual misogyny is tired, blindingly obvious, and vomit-worthy.

I'm no hypocrite. You are conflating two very different things. I don't have to adopt children to oppose killing them.

No, it's hypocrisy. You don't want these children (because you're 'not ready' or something) so you don't have to have them. But if you had a uterus, you'd have to.

[UCUMAY]

Those effect social cohesion. Abortion does not.

Not necessarily. We had a rather cohesive society when the husband was considered head of the household, and spousal rape wasn't even considered rape. Many societies throughout history have allowed the killing of various segments of humanity that they deemed unworthy of legal protection, be they infants or slaves or certain races.

Yep and those societies fall, or some group rises up to fight on the behalf of the oppressed. In the end society works itself out, or collapses.

Apparently, when men ruled society there weren't women who'd kill their abuser either, and women had no power. Haven't you heard of the saying power behind the throne? Oh wait never mind women were on thrones!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/rulers.html

[Bottle]

I didn't answer this question because I'm among the majority of Americans, who would neither ban abortion altogether, nor permit it without restrictions. If a woman has a good reason, she should be able to get an abortion. But I don't want it used as a form of birth control.

That never happens so it wouldn't matter if abortion is legal for whatever reason.

Actually, and to beat one of my favorite dead horses, abortion IS ALWAYS BIRTH CONTROL. Always, every single time, without exception, no matter what. Because, duh, terminating a pregnancy is a way of controlling when/if you're going to have birth. Abortion is ALWAYS, always, always birth control.

People who say they don't want abortion "used as birth control" are simply saying "I reserve the right to force women to bear pregnancies against their wishes for whatever reasons I think are good enough." The fact that they are sometimes willing to let women off the hook if they get themselves decently raped (not like those sluts who slut around and deserve to be forced to endure childbirth to teach them a lesson) doesn't really make them any less assholish on this count.

[Wiztopia]

You want men to die from rape because you want to keep rape hard to do. You want people to die from arson because you want to make arson harder to commit.Actually, it happens. It's not at all commonplace, but it happens.
PRO-TIP: It's generally a bad idea to say something "never" happens, as one example can prove you wrong.

Your argument is shit. Your anthology doesn't work at all. It has nothing to do with what I said. I like how you think The Sun is a reliable source.

[Robert Magoo]

Except men.

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

[UCUMAY]

Except men.

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

Men would be all for abortion if they carried the fetus. Being pregnant isn't easy.

But then women would be against it. Irony is funny like that.

[Robert Magoo]

Do you honestly think if men could get pregnant that pro-lifers would support allowing them to get abortions?

Men would be all for abortion if they carried the fetus. Being pregnant isn't easy.

But then women would be against it. Irony is funny like that.

Practically, I'm sure many men wouldn't want to carry a child, just as many women don't in reality. But still, there are pro-life women, because it's viewed as an issue of right and wrong, more important than convenience...

[UCUMAY]

Men would be all for abortion if they carried the fetus. Being pregnant isn't easy.

But then women would be against it. Irony is funny like that.

Practically, I'm sure many men wouldn't want to carry a child, just as many women don't in reality. But still, there are pro-life women, because it's viewed as an issue of right and wrong, more important than convenience...

I didn't say pro-life women didn't exist. But the majority who are pro-life are men.