Abortion: Humane or not?

[Allentyr]

It's not independent from the mother. A fetus is again, a parasite parasitic organism that RELIES on the mother, feeding off her.

Ftfy

*shrug*

[Dyakovo]

Sex isn't childbirth.

Is masturbation not sufficient?¹ If you really don't want to get pregnant, don't have kids², or better yet, get the guy to use a condom³.

Otherwise, if one takes the risk, they do not get the right to end the life of the unborn child that is now inhabiting their womb⁴.

1: No, masturbation is not sufficient to induce pregnancy.
2: Giving birth to a child does not increase the odds of getting pregnant.
3: Condoms are not 100% effective, even when used properly.
4: There's nothing obvious about that at all. Do you tell people who were in car accidents that they obviously cannot seek medical attention because they knew there was a risk of it happening when they got in the car?

[Camelza]

And even if they did, consent may be revoked.
It's rapey to suggest it can't be. That's a pretty basic tenet of consent.

I've already stated that I support abortion in cases of rape. Speaking of which, my arguments were quite a deal better before I got bogged down in semantics.

So, to you, pregnancy is a punishment for the careless, as such if a woman unwillingly and knowingly gets pregnant through rape, the supposed "rights" of the fetus are eliminated?
Your logic is faulted.

[Dyakovo]

And even if they did, consent may be revoked.
It's rapey to suggest it can't be. That's a pretty basic tenet of consent.

I've already stated that I support abortion in cases of rape. Speaking of which, my arguments were quite a deal better before I got bogged down in semantics.

No, they really weren't.

[Sanctissima]

I've already stated that I support abortion in cases of rape. Speaking of which, my arguments were quite a deal better before I got bogged down in semantics.

But you keep advancing this idea that consent is irrevocable, or that she has to accept the consequences of consenting at some point.
So what if they had sex.

Suppose she had sex and fully intended to be pregnant.
She can't change her mind and withdraw consent?

You realize how that sounds, right?
It sounds like a rapist. Maybe that should give you pause.

What I advocate is that unprotected, consensual sex has consequences, one's that involve the creation of another human life (and this gets philosophical, I suppose, but you've got to at least acknowledge that the unborn child is a human to be).

My interests lie solely with the child's life and well-being, I really could care less about the sex.

My point is that, once impregnated, the person (assuming the sex was consensual), knew that pregnancy could be a possibility, but chose to have unprotected sex anyway. Thus, she owes the unborn child the right to be born.

[Ostroeuropa]

In case it gets dropped:

I find it very telling that the focus is on consent to sex meaning they have to accept the consequences and not change their mind.

It's precisely the same rationale many rapists use.

Well, they consented at first then changed their mind, but they aren't allowed to do that, so I fucked them anyway.


Why can't they change their mind?
Why are you so focused on this idea that they consented AT SOME POINT.


Like I said, it should make pro-lifers a bit squeamish when they realize who they sound like.

If you don't consider her consent relevant then come right out and say so.
It's as viable a position as your current one. "Dont care, baby has a right to live."

But if you DO consider it relevant, then why the rapist-like shenanigans with twisting consent?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is masturbation not sufficient? If you really don't want to get pregnant, don't have kids, or better yet, get the guy to use a condom.

Otherwise, if one takes the risk, they do not get the right to end the life of the unborn child that is now inhabiting their womb.

Well, depending on who you ask, sex has between 8 and 17 seperate health benefits, most of which cannot be achieved via masturbation.

Sauce for you.

Wait, so does that mean that I'm less better off than someone who has sex everyday?

Thanks, Obama.

[Hurdegaryp]

Actually, it's a clump of replicating cells. And genetic uniqueness does not stop it from not being a person.

It is not. It is a human organism with complex designs for the future. A zygote acts immediately to initiate a program of development that will, if not interrupted, result in a complete life. Completely different from mere cellular life.

According to that 'logic', male masturbation is murder as well. All that wasted sperm could have become so many people if combined with eggs, after all. MASTURBATION IS MURDER does sound catchy enough, that slogan will undoubtedly get you more than enough media attention as well.

[Dyakovo]

In case it gets dropped:

I find it very telling that the focus is on consent to sex meaning they have to accept the consequences and not change their mind.

It's precisely the same rationale many rapists use.

Well, they consented at first then changed their mind, but they aren't allowed to do that, so I fucked them anyway.


Why can't they change their mind?
Why are you so focused on this idea that they consented AT SOME POINT.


Like I said, it should make pro-lifers a bit squeamish when they realize who they sound like.

You'd think so... Experience tells me this is not true.

[Galloism]

Well, depending on who you ask, sex has between 8 and 17 seperate health benefits, most of which cannot be achieved via masturbation.

Sauce for you.

Wait, so does that mean that I'm less better off than someone who has sex everyday?

Thanks, Obama.

Did Obama take out for a steak dinner sand never call you again?

For shame.

[Mavorpen]

But you keep advancing this idea that consent is irrevocable, or that she has to accept the consequences of consenting at some point.
So what if they had sex.

Suppose she had sex and fully intended to be pregnant.
She can't change her mind and withdraw consent?

You realize how that sounds, right?
It sounds like a rapist. Maybe that should give you pause.

What I advocate is that unprotected, consensual sex has consequences, one's that involve the creation of another human life (and this gets philosophical, I suppose, but you've got to at least acknowledge that the unborn child is a human to be).

My interests lie solely with the child's life and well-being, I really could care less about the sex.

My point is that, once impregnated, the person (assuming the sex was consensual), knew that pregnancy could be a possibility, but chose to have unprotected sex anyway. Thus, she owes the unborn child the right to be born.

Right, so if a woman were being beaten while having sex she consented to, she has an obligation to continue with it and cannot revoke consent.

Seems legit.

[Hurdegaryp]

Wait, so does that mean that I'm less better off than someone who has sex everyday?

Thanks, Obama.

Did Obama take you out for a steak dinner sand never call you again?

For shame.

Hey, it apparently was a really good steak. Also there was dessert, or so I've heard.

[Jamzmania]

It is not. It is a human organism with complex designs for the future. A zygote acts immediately to initiate a program of development that will, if not interrupted, result in a complete life. Completely different from mere cellular life.

According to that 'logic', male masturbation is murder as well. All that wasted sperm could have become so many people if combined with eggs, after all. MASTURBATION IS MURDER does sound catchy enough, that slogan will undoubtedly get you more than enough media attention as well.

That's called a Stawman.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Wait, so does that mean that I'm less better off than someone who has sex everyday?

Thanks, Obama.

Did Obama take out for a steak dinner sand never call you again?

For shame.

Indeed. Not a good date at all.

All talk but no show.

[Ostroeuropa]

But you keep advancing this idea that consent is irrevocable, or that she has to accept the consequences of consenting at some point.
So what if they had sex.

Suppose she had sex and fully intended to be pregnant.
She can't change her mind and withdraw consent?

You realize how that sounds, right?
It sounds like a rapist. Maybe that should give you pause.

What I advocate is that unprotected, consensual sex has consequences, one's that involve the creation of another human life (and this gets philosophical, I suppose, but you've got to at least acknowledge that the unborn child is a human to be).

My interests lie solely with the child's life and well-being, I really could care less about the sex.

My point is that, once impregnated, the person (assuming the sex was consensual), knew that pregnancy could be a possibility, but chose to have unprotected sex anyway. Thus, she owes the unborn child the right to be born.

"Consenting to sex has consequences, it gives the male a boner, and thus it's his right not to get blue balls.
No you can't change your mind, that's a violation of my rights."

You seriously don't see the problem, do you.

Using consent that once existed to justify continuing to treat someone as if they are giving consent is fucking rapey behaviour.

[Sanctissima]

What I advocate is that unprotected, consensual sex has consequences, one's that involve the creation of another human life (and this gets philosophical, I suppose, but you've got to at least acknowledge that the unborn child is a human to be).

My interests lie solely with the child's life and well-being, I really could care less about the sex.

My point is that, once impregnated, the person (assuming the sex was consensual), knew that pregnancy could be a possibility, but chose to have unprotected sex anyway. Thus, she owes the unborn child the right to be born.

Right, so if a woman were being beaten while having sex she consented to, she has an obligation to continue with it and cannot revoke consent.

Seems legit.

Well, that sounds like rape, so, yes, she can revoke consent.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Everyone seems to be denying the undeniably special and unique relationship between a mother and her child, not comparable to anything else.

Mother is a social construct that women have the right to refuse.

[Hurdegaryp]

According to that 'logic', male masturbation is murder as well. All that wasted sperm could have become so many people if combined with eggs, after all. MASTURBATION IS MURDER does sound catchy enough, that slogan will undoubtedly get you more than enough media attention as well.

That's called a Stawman.

I don't see what Stawman has to do with it.

[Mavorpen]

Right, so if a woman were being beaten while having sex she consented to, she has an obligation to continue with it and cannot revoke consent.

Seems legit.

Well, that sounds like rape, so, yes, she can revoke consent.

Why? What about the rapist? My interests lie solely with them. The woman consented. You can't let them take it away.

[Ostroeuropa]

You invited me into your house. I'm staying forever.

You knew this was a possibility when you invited me in, accept the consequences. No, you can't change your mind, you have a responsibility donchaknow.

[Galloism]

What I advocate is that unprotected, consensual sex has consequences, one's that involve the creation of another human life (and this gets philosophical, I suppose, but you've got to at least acknowledge that the unborn child is a human to be).

My interests lie solely with the child's life and well-being, I really could care less about the sex.

My point is that, once impregnated, the person (assuming the sex was consensual), knew that pregnancy could be a possibility, but chose to have unprotected sex anyway. Thus, she owes the unborn child the right to be born.

"Consenting to sex has consequences, it gives the male a boner, and thus it's his right not to get blue balls.
No you can't change your mind, that's a violation of my rights."

You seriously don't see the problem, do you.

Using consent that once existed to justify continuing to treat someone as if they are giving consent is fucking rapey behaviour.

And uh, even for nonbodily autonomy cases, has not been accepted practice for... well, ever.

Consent to an activity can be withdrawn at any time where you are consciously able to withdraw it or, in some specific circumstances, fail to remain consciously able to withdraw it.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Well...about 0.3% of births result in orgasms.

This is one kind not available to everyone, though. As a rather huge majority of people born after 1985 in my country, I'm a C-section baby - and in this case, out of necessity (my birth was about 2 days late). Pretty sure all my mother felt was pain.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Consenting to sex has consequences, it gives the male a boner, and thus it's his right not to get blue balls.
No you can't change your mind, that's a violation of my rights."

You seriously don't see the problem, do you.

Using consent that once existed to justify continuing to treat someone as if they are giving consent is fucking rapey behaviour.

And uh, even for nonbodily autonomy cases, has not been accepted practice for... well, ever.

Consent to an activity can be withdrawn at any time where you are consciously able to withdraw it or, in some specific circumstances, fail to remain consciously able to withdraw it.

Pretty much.

"I dont want to do this."
"Yes you do, you said so earlier."
"No, I really don't."
"BUT YOU DO "

[Dyakovo]

You invited me into your house. I'm staying forever.

You knew this was a possibility when you invited me in, accept the consequences. No, you can't change your mind, you have a responsibility donchaknow.

Nah... You can only stay for 9 months. After that you're completely on your own.

[Sanctissima]

What I advocate is that unprotected, consensual sex has consequences, one's that involve the creation of another human life (and this gets philosophical, I suppose, but you've got to at least acknowledge that the unborn child is a human to be).

My interests lie solely with the child's life and well-being, I really could care less about the sex.

My point is that, once impregnated, the person (assuming the sex was consensual), knew that pregnancy could be a possibility, but chose to have unprotected sex anyway. Thus, she owes the unborn child the right to be born.

"Consenting to sex has consequences, it gives the male a boner, and thus it's his right not to get blue balls.
No you can't change your mind, that's a violation of my rights."

You seriously don't see the problem, do you.

Using consent that once existed to justify continuing to treat someone as if they are giving consent is fucking rapey behaviour.

Okay, I must have said something that made you seriously misunderstand me.

Sorry for that.

Yes, that is rape. Very serious rape, actually, rape that warrants very strict legal action.

Yes, you can revoke consent mid-sex, but that's not necessarily the case with pregnancy. I mean, you could get pregnant sometime in the midst of the consented sex right up until the refusal to continue part, which, assuming the guy agrees to stop, means you owe it to the now unborn child in your womb to give birth to it. If, of course, the guy continued to have sex anyway, then that's rape, and you have no responsibility for the wellbeing of the unborn child. Additionally, in such a scenario, the attention should be focused far more on the rapist than the pregnancy that resulted from his actions.