Should men have a choice in abortion?

[Empire of Narnia]

No, but the baby should. Too bad they kill it before it can even talk. Mengele would approve.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, but the baby should. Too bad they kill it before it can even talk. Mengele would approve.

You seriously made that comparison?

You know, I would definitely say something, but then again, I will just point out Mengele and mothers who abort are two different fields, and your comparison is the equivalent of amateurish historical analysis.

[The Grey Wolf]

No, but the baby should. Too bad they kill it before it can even talk. Mengele would approve.

You seriously made that comparison?

You know, I would definitely say something, but then again, I will just point out Mengele and mothers who abort are two different fields, and your comparison is the equivalent of amateurish historical analysis.

Besides, we all know his horrible experiments were just lies fabricated by the Jewish media to win chunks of land in the Middle East.

[Transhuman Proteus]

No, but the baby should. Too bad they kill it before it can even talk. Mengele would approve.

So, Godwin.

It isn't a baby when the pregnancy is terminated. In the majority of cases it is a long way from that, and from being close to being able to exist on its own outside of the one hosting it, or even having brain activity.

Though I would wonder what you think of miscarriages. Do you know the likelihood of a body naturally aborting the pregnancy? It's pretty high.

[Mkuki]

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.

And I never stated she had to.

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"?

I define marriage as the current definition of marriage as defined by any governmental entity within the sovereign territory of the United States of America. A domestic partnership, as I believe it, is a legally binding contract between any two, or more, individual citizens of the United States of America that includes some form of agreed to living arrangement between the signatory parties. They'd also have to be recognized by any current governmental entity within the sovereign territory of the United States of America. Civil unions are also included.

Same-sex partners/married couples can not be excluded either.

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?

Yes, a husband can lie. Which is why a woman does not have to hear the grievances of the father. I've made that perfectly clear.

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.

The only job of a publicly-funded hospital is to treat life-threatening or paralyzing wounds without distinction of class, sex, or ethnicity. Everything else is, essentially, a volunteered service. Abortion does not fall into either category. Abortion is a choice.

[Transhuman Proteus]

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.

I'm failing to see an argument for why one has some sort of obligation to live with B just because one decided to go through A, when it is possible to remove A all together. Pregnancy is not a certain outcome from sex (even completely unprotected sex). Birth control reduces the likelihood further. Abortion as a final line pretty much reduces the chance of having an unwanted pregnancy to close to 0%.

By that reasoning men and women shouldn't cure themselves from STDs they might contract - they willingly decided to have sex, ended up with lots of innocent little life forms on their genitals, they should be responsible for bearing them evermore.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

And I never stated she had to.

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"?

I define marriage as the current definition of marriage as defined by any governmental entity within the sovereign territory of the United States of America. A domestic partnership, as I believe it, is a legally binding contract between any two, or more, individual citizens of the United States of America that includes some form of agreed to living arrangement between the signatory parties. They'd also have to be recognized by any current governmental entity within the sovereign territory of the United States of America. Civil unions are also included.

Same-sex partners/married couples can not be excluded either.

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?

Yes, a husband can lie. Which is why a woman does not have to hear the grievances of the father. I've made that perfectly clear.

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.

The only job of a publicly-funded hospital is to treat life-threatening or paralyzing wounds without distinction of class, sex, or ethnicity. Everything else is, essentially, a volunteered service. Abortion does not fall into either category. Abortion is a choice.

1) You do understand and can rationalize that many of us are not in the US or are not thinking exclusively in 'murican terms, right?

2) You are suggesting that she still has to or she can be denied services at a public facility, thus she has to by force if she isn't wealthy enough to afford one, bringing illegal abortions into the fray.

3) An abortion is a choice? Tell that to the mother of the child of a rapist or to a dead mother from labor. You have not the slightest idea of what you are advocating here.

[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.

I'm failing to see an argument for why one has some sort of obligation to live with B just because one decided to go through A, when it is possible to remove A all together. Pregnancy is not a certain outcome from sex (even completely unprotected sex). Birth control reduces the likelihood further. Abortion as a final line pretty much reduces the chance of having an unwanted pregnancy to close to 0%.

By that reasoning men and women shouldn't cure themselves from STDs they might contract - they willingly decided to have sex, ended up with lots of innocent little life forms on their genitals, they should be responsible for bearing them evermore.

So a baby is a STD?

[Transhuman Proteus]

The only job of a publicly-funded hospital is to treat life-threatening or paralyzing wounds without distinction of class, sex, or ethnicity. Everything else is, essentially, a volunteered service. Abortion does not fall into either category. Abortion is a choice.

I'm curious as to what you are basing your definition of a publicly-funded hospital on, since it seems to be disconnected with the reality of publicly-funded hospitals world over, what with their providing medical care and services to the public.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I'm failing to see an argument for why one has some sort of obligation to live with B just because one decided to go through A, when it is possible to remove A all together. Pregnancy is not a certain outcome from sex (even completely unprotected sex). Birth control reduces the likelihood further. Abortion as a final line pretty much reduces the chance of having an unwanted pregnancy to close to 0%.

By that reasoning men and women shouldn't cure themselves from STDs they might contract - they willingly decided to have sex, ended up with lots of innocent little life forms on their genitals, they should be responsible for bearing them evermore.

So a baby is a STD?

Nope, they are both potential outcomes from willingly engaging in sexual activity and in the case of pregnancy potentially equally unwanted (or more so, since pregnancy poses a lot more risks than most STDs). So you need to justify why some potential outcomes must be carried, while others one can wash away with a cream without a care in the world.

"Babies are magical, wonderful things and an embryo is potentially the next Einstein!" isn't a justification. Put some meat on that idea of yours that a woman has an obligation to see a pregnancy to term simply because she decided to have sex.

[Mkuki]

1) You do understand and can rationalize that many of us are not in the US or are not thinking exclusively in 'murican terms, right?

Then it translates to however foreign governmental entities, both national and local, define marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership.

2) You are suggesting that she still has to or she can be denied services at a public facility, thus she has to by force if she isn't wealthy enough to afford one, bringing illegal abortions into the fray.

Given that hearing the grievances of the father, who also has to be the legally recognized husband, which doesn't even have to occur face-to-face, it can occur once and by paper for all I care, is such an insignificant obstacle I don't see what the big deal is.

3) An abortion is a choice? Tell that to the mother of the child of a rapist or to a dead mother from labor. You have not the slightest idea of what you are advocating here.

Yes. Abortion is a choice. Abortions, for the most part, are not life-threatening cases. Yes, there are cases where a mother giving birth can put her life at risk, and in those cases then my singular restriction is thrown out of the window. For the most part, though, an abortion is still a choice. And, as such, that choice does not and will not take precedence over actual, life-threatening wounds and injuries. Not to mention that it doesn't get to evade my one rule, either.

And, like I said before, rapists do not get to have their grievances aired. What could possibly make you think I'd allow a rapist to have a say in a situation he caused against the woman's consent?

And, in any case, why are you placing so much trust in the ability of, in this hypothetical example, an emotionally or mentally damaged woman? You really think such a woman should be capable of making such an important decision on her own?

[Saiwania]

If that dont work, maybe look for someone outside Islam?

Islam specifically prohibits Muslim women from marrying non-Muslims, but a Muslim man is allowed to marry Christians or Jews. That is just how the Islamic religion is, this is on purpose to try to give themselves more of an advantage.

[Mkuki]

The only job of a publicly-funded hospital is to treat life-threatening or paralyzing wounds without distinction of class, sex, or ethnicity. Everything else is, essentially, a volunteered service. Abortion does not fall into either category. Abortion is a choice.

I'm curious as to what you are basing your definition of a publicly-funded hospital on, since it seems to be disconnected with the reality of publicly-funded hospitals world over, what with their providing medical care and services to the public.

I define it as a hospital receiving the majority of its funds from the federal government.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I'm curious as to what you are basing your definition of a publicly-funded hospital on, since it seems to be disconnected with the reality of publicly-funded hospitals world over, what with their providing medical care and services to the public.

I define it as a hospital receiving the majority of its funds from the federal government.

No, as to what the duty of a publicly-funded hospital is. Their point is to make medical services and care available to people of all walks of life. If one limits their function to purely life-threatening or paralyzing wounds then many other services they offer become a private or volunteer provided thing, potentially putting them out of the reach of many individuals.

"Sorry bone disease guy. That replacement hip is an elective surgery that would improve the quality of your life, but you are still ok to walk and your existing hip isn't so bad yet that it is life threatening, and as a publicly-funded hospital we only do that. You'll need to save up and go private. Or get healthcare. Or wait till your existing hip gives way. Ok, now lets see what else do I have schedules - turn away impoverished mother seeking abortion, turn away care crash victim seeking non-vital facial reconstructive surgery..."

[Ovisterra]

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.

What if she used contraception but it didn't work?

[Mkuki]

I define it as a hospital receiving the majority of its funds from the federal government.

No, as to what the duty of a publicly-funded hospital is. Their point is to make medical services and care available to people of all walks of life. If one limits their function to purely life-threatening or paralyzing wounds then many other services they offer become a private or volunteer provided thing, potentially putting them out of the reach of many individuals.

"Sorry bone disease guy. That replacement hip is an elective surgery that would improve the quality of your life, but you are still ok to walk and your existing hip isn't so bad yet that it is life threatening, and as a publicly-funded hospital we only do that. You'll need to save up and go private. Or get healthcare. Or wait till your existing hip gives way. Ok, now lets see what else do I have schedules - turn away impoverished mother seeking abortion, turn away care crash victim seeking non-vital facial reconstructive surgery..."

I'm just saying that, in practicality, a doctor working at BAMC, a military hospital in case you wanted to know, will treat the guy missing a leg before he treats the guy who's twisted his ankle or broken his arm. Bone diseases would also take precedence over an abortion. Which is my point. All that other stuff mostly happens involuntarily. An abortion is a deliberate choice and as such shouldn't be inherently deemed to be in the jurisdiction of a publicly-funded hospital. Certainly not above 'guy who lost his leg' or 'bone disease guy', at least.

Life-threatening births, of course, are not included in this.

[Transhuman Proteus]

No, as to what the duty of a publicly-funded hospital is. Their point is to make medical services and care available to people of all walks of life. If one limits their function to purely life-threatening or paralyzing wounds then many other services they offer become a private or volunteer provided thing, potentially putting them out of the reach of many individuals.

"Sorry bone disease guy. That replacement hip is an elective surgery that would improve the quality of your life, but you are still ok to walk and your existing hip isn't so bad yet that it is life threatening, and as a publicly-funded hospital we only do that. You'll need to save up and go private. Or get healthcare. Or wait till your existing hip gives way. Ok, now lets see what else do I have schedules - turn away impoverished mother seeking abortion, turn away care crash victim seeking non-vital facial reconstructive surgery..."

I'm just saying that, in practicality, a doctor working at BAMC, a military hospital in case you wanted to know, will treat the guy missing a leg before he treats the guy who's twisted his ankle or broken his arm. Bone diseases would also take precedence over an abortion. Which is my point. All that other stuff mostly happens involuntarily. An abortion is a deliberate choice and as such shouldn't be inherently deemed to be in the jurisdiction of a publicly-funded hospital. Certainly not above 'guy who lost his leg' or 'bone disease guy', at least.

Life-threatening births, of course, are not included in this.

But no public hospital is putting abortions or elective surgeries before life threatening stuff.

That's why they are elective surgeries or procedures. Your GP books you, you go when they can fit you in around the other stuff. If something big occurs then they reschedule you and your elective surgery/procedure, or send you to another hospital with an opening.

Which is also why the remain a jurisdiction of the hospital, because they are the sole body capable of offering them to people of all walks of life that can't get them elsewhere (hey there's a clinic in town, great. There isn't?), and coordinating that kind of stuff. Cutting electives from hospitals doesn't mean much will change for the big stuff, because that's already their main priority. Really, it's a "lets break something that isn't broke" situation you're advocating.

Never mind an abortion is a specialist procedure, offered by a specially trained doctor. What would he be doing if he wasn't carrying out a procedure he was trained for? There's a certain amount of flexibility in a surgeon/doctors training, but not so much so an administrator can go "ok, we'll cut electives in this area, and we'll be able to put those specialists to work in this other area".

[Mkuki]

I'm just saying that, in practicality, a doctor working at BAMC, a military hospital in case you wanted to know, will treat the guy missing a leg before he treats the guy who's twisted his ankle or broken his arm. Bone diseases would also take precedence over an abortion. Which is my point. All that other stuff mostly happens involuntarily. An abortion is a deliberate choice and as such shouldn't be inherently deemed to be in the jurisdiction of a publicly-funded hospital. Certainly not above 'guy who lost his leg' or 'bone disease guy', at least.

Life-threatening births, of course, are not included in this.

But no public hospital is putting abortions or elective surgeries before life threatening stuff.

That's why they are elective surgeries or procedures. Your GP books you, you go when they can fit you in around the other stuff. If something big occurs then they reschedule you and your elective surgery/procedure, or send you to another hospital with an opening.

Which is also why the remain a jurisdiction of the hospital, because they are the sole body capable of offering them to people of all walks of life that can't get them elsewhere (hey there's a clinic in town, great. There isn't?), and coordinating that kind of stuff. Cutting electives from hospitals doesn't mean much will change for the big stuff, because that's already their main priority. Really, it's a "lets break something that isn't broke" situation you're advocating.

Never mind an abortion is a specialist procedure, offered by a specially trained doctor. What would he be doing if he wasn't carrying out a procedure he was trained for? There's a certain amount of flexibility in a surgeon/doctors training, but not so much so an administrator can go "ok, we'll cut electives in this area, and we'll be able to put those specialists to work in this other area".

And I'm not saying that anything should be cut away from publicly-funded hospitals.

Really, it's a "lets break something that isn't broke" situation you're advocating.

I don't think so, but then again hospitals and their duties isn't the main crux of my rule.

[Gravlen]

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.

Yes... But... if those risks should materialize, she's able to handle them, to reduce the impact of them. She's is able to cure herself of diseases. And she's able to terminate a pregnancy.

[Transhuman Proteus]

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.

So are you saying the woman (and the man) shouldn't be allowed to cure themselves of STDs? And if you aren't saying that why should pregnancy be any different?

It is a potential consequence of an action - not a certainty. There is no reason to live with it if one doesn't wish to.

[Divair]

No, but the baby should. Too bad they kill it before it can even talk. Mengele would approve.

What baby?

[AiliailiA]

No, but the baby should. Too bad they kill it before it can even talk. Mengele would approve.

And we have GODWIN!

Proud of yourself Narnia?

[AiliailiA]

Maybe we should ask baaybee when it gets brain activity. I know it can't talk, but can't we read its mind with MRI or something?

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Yes... But... if those risks should materialize, she's able to handle them, to reduce the impact of them. She's is able to cure herself of diseases. And she's able to terminate a pregnancy.

But nevermind if men want to be able to reduce the impact of risks.
Because it's better to violate the rights of men than inconvinience women or deny an entitlement to children that could easily be provided by the state.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Yes... But... if those risks should materialize, she's able to handle them, to reduce the impact of them. She's is able to cure herself of diseases. And she's able to terminate a pregnancy.

But nevermind if men want to be able to reduce the impact of risks.

They... can? They can use contraceptives or say no if the woman doesn't want to. Or use a cure on any STDs if they don't and get them.

Because it's better to violate the rights of men

What right is violated by a woman being the one with the ultimate choice as to what happens to her body?

than inconvinience women or deny an entitlement to children that could easily be provided by the state.

Not sure I follow - we're entitled to children and the state should provide it? We all have reproductive rights - men & women - but if no one wants to have kids with us, no one should be obligated to impregnate us/carry our kids (or given kids via adoption if one is unsuitable).