Should men have a choice in abortion?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I will say I apologize to you in the name of all decent men who are still left in the planet. You should have not had to go through that.

And I can see how it was, being that it was forced and all.

Even pregnancies that aren't forced can still be torture. It depends on the emotional state of the woman.

Yes, but not all pregnancies are to be considered tortures. That is quite absolutist.

I mean, it's not like they are putting you on the rack and slowly pulling you apart for 9 months. However, like I said, I can see your point in saying this. It may not be the best way to put it, but I do share your opinion.

[Othelos]

Sorry, but the fetus had no choice but to be there.

But she has the choice about whether it stays. Her body, her choice.

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

So what if the baby poses a legitimate health risk to the mother? Do we just say "fuck her! She opened her legs, let her deal with it" or do we say "fuck, you know? Thank God we have abortions, otherwise God fucking knows if she would be here today".

Plus, the baby isn't a baby until at least the 4th-5th month, making your appeal invalid.

What is it with you people and putting words in people's mouths? If it poses legitimate health risk, then abortion is justified. Likewise with rape.
But if a woman willingly decides to have sex, and ends up pregnant, she should be responsible for bearing the child.

So women should be forced to go through pain, body changes, vomiting for nine months, be enslaved for nine months, and then be forced to give birth and take care of a child she doesn't want as punishment for sex? Since when is sex a crime?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

But she has the choice about whether it stays. Her body, her choice.

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

If you are inside my body, I have a right to remove you if I do not want you there, because you do not have a right to my body.
Neither does a tape worm.
Neither does the government.
Neither does my husband.
Neither does my significant other.
Neither does a fetus.

[The Grey Wolf]

What is it with you people and putting words in people's mouths? If it poses legitimate health risk, then abortion is justified. Likewise with rape.
But if a woman willingly decides to have sex, and ends up pregnant, she should be responsible for bearing the child.

So women should be forced to go through pain, body changes, vomiting for nine months, be enslaved for nine months, and then be forced to give birth and take care of a child she doesn't want as punishment for sex? Since when is sex a crime?

Sex isn't a crime. But when you make a decision you are responsible.

[Zweite Alaje]

But she has the choice about whether it stays. Her body, her choice.

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

Nope, cuz women's pleasure is more important than a human life.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But she has the choice about whether it stays. Her body, her choice.

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

A fetus, before 4-5 months is nothing but a clump of cells with about roughly the same properties as the infant cells in our bodies.

They are not that special until they are well in term.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

So women should be forced to go through pain, body changes, vomiting for nine months, be enslaved for nine months, and then be forced to give birth and take care of a child she doesn't want as punishment for sex? Since when is sex a crime?

Sex isn't a crime. But when you make a decision you are responsible.

I didn't choose to have sex 2 years, 10 months, and 26 days ago, but I was impregnated.
Why should I have been punished?
Why should any woman be punished for having sex?
Why does a fetus get a right to our body but a rapist goes to jail when he tries to use our body?
Abortion is one form of responsibility.

[Mkuki]

Yeah, that's nice and all. I don't agree and your blatant characterization of women as weak-willed and scared out of their wits doesn't help your case either. I never said my opinion was absolute. There are exceptions. Namely a record of abuse by the husband, or wife, and that only married persons apply to this rule. If a husband, or wife, is provably abusive then they don't get to sit with their wife and talk about having an abortion. They have no say whatsoever.

I doubt I'll be able to convince you, given your absolutist stance on something that directly affects more than one person, but I'll gladly continue to debate. I'd also suggest calming down. There's really no need to yell.

How the fuck can you yell through typing? Is my typing too loud for you?

All caps. Curse words accompanying all caps. Really, it isn't that hard.

And second, I never characterized women as weak-willed. But you clearly don't know what emotional abuse is and how it works and that even the strongest willed person can be a victim of it

I never said a strong-willed person can't be a victim of emotional abuse, however, the way I read your post seemed to me to be characterizing women as weak-willed.

And I don't give a flying shit if it affects ten thousand people. Those ten thousand people don't get a say in what happens to HER body when it only directly affects HER.

That's a pity. Looking at things that way is not how a society should be run.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

Nope, cuz women's pleasure is more important than a human life.

No human, fetus or not, has a right to my body.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

Nope, cuz women's pleasure is more important than a human life.

A clump of cells don't have human life, it is animal life, but that can be roughly said also about rat's fetuses.

Human life is more about the point of when the first beat of the child is heard, which is usually at the 4th to 5th month, anything before that is not a human life.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

How the fuck can you yell through typing? Is my typing too loud for you?

All caps. Curse words accompanying all caps. Really, it isn't that hard.

And second, I never characterized women as weak-willed. But you clearly don't know what emotional abuse is and how it works and that even the strongest willed person can be a victim of it

I never said a strong-willed person can't be a victim of emotional abuse, however, the way I read your post seemed to me to be characterizing women as weak-willed.

And I don't give a flying shit if it affects ten thousand people. Those ten thousand people don't get a say in what happens to HER body when it only directly affects HER.

That's a pity. Looking at things that way is not how a society should be run.

Exactly why should I care if my abortion affects someone else? It's not their body. They can go have as many babies as they want with women who wish to give birth. It's not my obligation to provide children for them or to let them have control over my body. You seem to be missing this point.

[The Grey Wolf]

Sex isn't a crime. But when you make a decision you are responsible.

I didn't choose to have sex 2 years, 10 months, and 26 days ago, but I was impregnated.
Why should I have been punished?
Why should any woman be punished for having sex?
Why does a fetus get a right to our body but a rapist goes to jail when he tries to use our body?
Abortion is one form of responsibility.

You know, I am near fully convinced that you are blind. Maybe you should've read my post when I said abortion was justified in the case of rape.
And second, it isn't punishment. If a woman fully and conscientiously has sex, and gets pregnant, she has responsibilities. From what you describe, you were forced.

[Othelos]

What is it with you people and putting words in people's mouths? If it poses legitimate health risk, then abortion is justified. Likewise with rape.
But if a woman willingly decides to have sex, and ends up pregnant, she should be responsible for bearing the child.

So women should be forced to go through pain, body changes, vomiting for nine months, be enslaved for nine months, and then be forced to give birth and take care of a child she doesn't want as punishment for sex? Since when is sex a crime?

Strawman.

Anyway, if she chose to have sex without using contraception, she also chose to risk pregnancy and whatever possible diseases go along with it.

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

If you are inside my body, I have a right to remove you if I do not want you there, because you do not have a right to my body.
Neither does a tape worm.

I agree, a woman never consented to having the tapeworm there.

Neither does the government.
Neither does my husband.
Neither does my significant other.

Same.

Neither does a fetus.

The fetus had no choice in the matter, seeing as the woman chose to have sex without using contraception. Therefore, she chose to risk anything that goes along with it, whether disease or pregnancy.

And what about the fetus? It has a body, too. Since it can't have a say in the decision, it should stay. If there is a conflict between choice and life, life should win.

A fetus, before 4-5 months is nothing but a clump of cells with about roughly the same properties as the infant cells in our bodies.

They are not that special until they are well in term.

It's still a human.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And I don't give a flying shit if it affects ten thousand people. Those ten thousand people don't get a say in what happens to HER body when it only directly affects HER.

That's a pity. Looking at things that way is not how a society should be run.

Your ideas are wrong and you should feel bad.

Honestly, I think she has the right concept in individualism. It's like saying my own behavioral sovereignty depends on some jackass out in the street. I could give a flying shit less what you or other ten thousand people think of me, and so I think her point is perfectly valid and a valid approximation of how exactly a society should run: giving us freedom to be whoever we want and make our own choices and reach our highest potential without having to worry about that person out in the street who disagrees with my lifestyle.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A fetus, before 4-5 months is nothing but a clump of cells with about roughly the same properties as the infant cells in our bodies.

They are not that special until they are well in term.

It's still a human.

Humans are composed of basically animal cells

Animal cells come from the lowest lizard to the human.

Therefore a blastocyst is not human, it may be animal, but it isn't human yet until it gains the shape and its heart begins to beat.

[Mkuki]

All caps. Curse words accompanying all caps. Really, it isn't that hard.


I never said a strong-willed person can't be a victim of emotional abuse, however, the way I read your post seemed to me to be characterizing women as weak-willed.


That's a pity. Looking at things that way is not how a society should be run.

Exactly why should I care if my abortion affects someone else? It's not their body. They can go have as many babies as they want with women who wish to give birth.

I'd say common decency, but I'm guessing you wouldn't care about that. But let's go with another perspective in that it is not in society's, or the individual's, interest to have no rules or regulations surrounding such important decisions as abortion.

It's not my obligation to provide children for them or to let them have control over my body. You seem to be missing this point.

I think you are missing my point. Especially considering I haven't taken away a woman's ability to have an abortion at all. And even if I had the only thing taken away is the venue of the abortion. Not the choice.

And even if that were considered a restriction of her right the only thing I'm advocating for is the barest of restrictions. Restrictions, I might add, that are further restricted since I placed two limits on where, not if, a woman could have an abortion.

[Mkuki]

That's a pity. Looking at things that way is not how a society should be run.

Your ideas are wrong and you should feel bad.

Honestly, I think she has the right concept in individualism. It's like saying my own behavioral sovereignty depends on some jackass out in the street. I could give a flying shit less what you or other ten thousand people think of me, and so I think her point is perfectly valid and a valid approximation of how exactly a society should run: giving us freedom to be whoever we want and make our own choices and reach our highest potential without having to worry about that person out in the street who disagrees with my lifestyle.

Absolutism leads to bad places. Including individualist absolutism. I can't force you into an opinion, but I'd suggest not going down that path before you get to the place of intolerant people like Torcularis Septentrionalis.

Yes, even people arguing for equality can be intolerant.

Also, which of my ideas are wrong, exactly? Even if you think all of it is wrong I'd like to know why on as many parts as you can answer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your ideas are wrong and you should feel bad.

Honestly, I think she has the right concept in individualism. It's like saying my own behavioral sovereignty depends on some jackass out in the street. I could give a flying shit less what you or other ten thousand people think of me, and so I think her point is perfectly valid and a valid approximation of how exactly a society should run: giving us freedom to be whoever we want and make our own choices and reach our highest potential without having to worry about that person out in the street who disagrees with my lifestyle.

Absolutism leads to bad places. Including individualist absolutism. I can't force you into an opinion, but I'd suggest not going down that path before you get to the place of intolerant people like Torcularis Septentrionalis.

Yes, even people arguing for equality can be intolerant.

Also, which of my ideas are wrong, exactly?

I don't think she is intolerant, but she is right in concept, although I would tend to think she is harsh about it.

And your idea that somehow people have to find validation in the opinions of others. You have to find validation in yourself, I am not in charge of making you feel better if you can't feel good about yourself.

[Furious Grandmothers]

It's still a human.

Humans are composed of basically animal cells

Animal cells come from the lowest lizard to the human.

Therefore a blastocyst is not human, it may be animal, but it isn't human yet until it gains the shape and its heart begins to beat.

Since these "defining boundaries" are so ambiguous, vague, subjective and far from settled, maybe whether and when a fetus can start to be counted as human/can start to be counted as being alive/can start to be counted as being a person and therefore having the associated rights and also responsibilities...maybe all these shouldn't be used as gauges at all, to tell a person what he/she can do with his/her body or not, especially when when it comes to the law.

[Mkuki]

Absolutism leads to bad places. Including individualist absolutism. I can't force you into an opinion, but I'd suggest not going down that path before you get to the place of intolerant people like Torcularis Septentrionalis.

Yes, even people arguing for equality can be intolerant.

Also, which of my ideas are wrong, exactly?

I don't think she is intolerant, but she is right in concept, although I would tend to think she is harsh about it.

And your idea that somehow people have to find validation in the opinions of others. You have to find validation in yourself, I am not in charge of making you feel better if you can't feel good about yourself.

Where, exactly, did I say or insinuate that "people have to find validation in the opinions of others"?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't think she is intolerant, but she is right in concept, although I would tend to think she is harsh about it.

And your idea that somehow people have to find validation in the opinions of others. You have to find validation in yourself, I am not in charge of making you feel better if you can't feel good about yourself.

Where, exactly, did I say or insinuate that "people have to find validation in the opinions of others"?

By saying her opinion about how women should not care about what other people say about her choices in the matter of a pregnancy is not "how a society should run" pretty much is telling her that a woman's pregnancy is dependent upon the validation of those around her. She doesn't have to find validation in anyone for her choice to abort or not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Humans are composed of basically animal cells

Animal cells come from the lowest lizard to the human.

Therefore a blastocyst is not human, it may be animal, but it isn't human yet until it gains the shape and its heart begins to beat.

Since these "defining boundaries" are so ambiguous, vague, subjective and far from settled, maybe whether and when a fetus can start to be counted as human/can start to be counted as being alive/can start to be counted as being a person and therefore having the associated rights and also responsibilities...maybe all these shouldn't be used as gauges at all, to tell a person what he/she can do with his/her body or not, especially when when it comes to the law.

I agree here,

However, personal morality/ethical thought and universal ethics/morality cross paths in these discussions, so it's hard to keep them apart sometimes. You have to understand that my "defining boundaries" are more moralistic and utilitarian than others, but they are also personal, so no, I am not suggesting that universally this must be the way it should be, but merely a personal opinion based upon a bit of medicine.

[Mkuki]

Where, exactly, did I say or insinuate that "people have to find validation in the opinions of others"?

By saying her opinion about how women should not care about what other people say about her choices in the matter of a pregnancy is pretty much telling her that a woman's pregnancy is dependent upon the validation of those around her. She doesn't have to find validation in anyone for her choice to abort or not.

I never said she had to find validation in anyone. The only thing a woman has to do if she is seeking to have an abortion performed is to hear out the grievances, it doesn't even have to be face to face, of the father. Of course that's only if the father is married or in some kind of domestic partnership contract with the mother and, even so, that marriage/contract has to be recognized by the state. That's also only if the father is not provably abusive. And even if the father, actually husband, fits into both of these categories the wife can still refuse to hear him. However, if she does refuse to hear him the only restriction on her is that she can't have an abortion performed in a publicly, or government-funded, hospital.

And just so I have it on record, cases of rape and non-consensual incest do not apply to my rule.

There it all is in one post.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

By saying her opinion about how women should not care about what other people say about her choices in the matter of a pregnancy is pretty much telling her that a woman's pregnancy is dependent upon the validation of those around her. She doesn't have to find validation in anyone for her choice to abort or not.

I never said she had to find validation in anyone. The only thing a woman has to do if she is seeking to have an abortion performed is to hear out the grievances, it doesn't even have to be face to face, of the father. Of course that's only if the father is married or in some kind of domestic partnership contract with the mother and, even so, that marriage/contract has to be recognized by the state. That's also only if the father is not provably abusive. And even if the father, actually husband, fits into both of these categories the wife can still refuse to hear him. However, if she does refuse to hear him the only restriction on her is that she can't have an abortion performed in a publicly, or government-funded, hospital.

There it all is in one post.

No, just no

1) She doesn't have to hear out any grievances if she doesn't want to. It's her mental freedom to do so or not freely, she doesn't have to listen to anyone's opinions on the matter.

2) Common Marriage is recognized in certain states, so I guess we should also adopt that then? How do you define "marriage" or "domestic partnership"?

3) Many husbands can lie or they can be emotionally abusive and lie even more about it. Abuse doesn't have to have the consequence of having a woman beaten to death you know?

4) That restriction is the most stupid idea I have ever heard. Public hospitals are meant to have medical services provided regardless of who it is. Medicine doesn't have to bend to your petty standards.