Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Bitely]

But if the father of the child didn't want the baby,and yet the mother still carried the baby to term, doesn't he still have to pay child support?

That's not an answer to my point.

But jumping aboard your tangent... in most cases, he probably would, yes.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing - once that child IS born (which means we've chosen not to abort) - it's going to need to be fed, clothed, housed and educated. Personally, I'm happy for this whole process to be done collectively... but absent that paradigm... sure, let's let the biological parents pay.

So the father of the fetus should have absolutely no rights/say as to what happens to it. But if the mother decides to keep it he? MUST pay?

[Godular]

But if the father of the child didn't want the baby,and yet the mother still carried the baby to term, doesn't he still have to pay child support?

That's not an answer to my point.

But jumping aboard your tangent... in most cases, he probably would, yes.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing - once that child IS born (which means we've chosen not to abort) - it's going to need to be fed, clothed, housed and educated. Personally, I'm happy for this whole process to be done collectively... but absent that paradigm... sure, let's let the biological parents pay.

Such presents a severe double standard though.

If a woman can terminate a pregnancy unilaterally if she does not wish to carry to term, forcing the father to support a child he did not wish for is giving the woman one right while denying its equivalent to the father.

Equality goes both ways. 'Course, that is for a different thread... wonder if I should start one up...

[Bitely]

That's not an answer to my point.

But jumping aboard your tangent... in most cases, he probably would, yes.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing - once that child IS born (which means we've chosen not to abort) - it's going to need to be fed, clothed, housed and educated. Personally, I'm happy for this whole process to be done collectively... but absent that paradigm... sure, let's let the biological parents pay.

Such presents a severe double standard though.

If a woman can terminate a pregnancy unilaterally if she does not wish to carry to term, forcing the father to support a child he did not wish for is giving the woman one right while denying its equivalent to the father.

Equality goes both ways. 'Course, that is for a different thread... wonder if I should start one up...

If equality went both ways it would be called humanism not feminism.

[Godular]

Such presents a severe double standard though.

If a woman can terminate a pregnancy unilaterally if she does not wish to carry to term, forcing the father to support a child he did not wish for is giving the woman one right while denying its equivalent to the father.

Equality goes both ways. 'Course, that is for a different thread... wonder if I should start one up...

If equality went both ways it would be called humanism not feminism.

Egalitarianism. Humanism has a separate connotation.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's not an answer to my point.

But jumping aboard your tangent... in most cases, he probably would, yes.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing - once that child IS born (which means we've chosen not to abort) - it's going to need to be fed, clothed, housed and educated. Personally, I'm happy for this whole process to be done collectively... but absent that paradigm... sure, let's let the biological parents pay.

So the father of the fetus should have absolutely no rights/say as to what happens to it. But if the mother decides to keep it he? MUST pay?

If the foetus has not been aborted, then we have an actual person born that needs supporting.

Personally, I'm open - as I've said - to that being a collective effort. But since everyone else seems to be fighting to separate the village from the baby... sure, let the biological parents pay.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's not an answer to my point.

But jumping aboard your tangent... in most cases, he probably would, yes.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing - once that child IS born (which means we've chosen not to abort) - it's going to need to be fed, clothed, housed and educated. Personally, I'm happy for this whole process to be done collectively... but absent that paradigm... sure, let's let the biological parents pay.

Such presents a severe double standard though.

If a woman can terminate a pregnancy unilaterally if she does not wish to carry to term, forcing the father to support a child he did not wish for is giving the woman one right while denying its equivalent to the father.

Women get to choose whether they carry a pregnancy to term because it happens in their own bodies. Men get the same right. That's not a double standard.

If the pregnancy is not aborted, both parents are going to be responsible for the offspring. Again, no double standard.

[Bitely]

So the father of the fetus should have absolutely no rights/say as to what happens to it. But if the mother decides to keep it he? MUST pay?

If the foetus has not been aborted, then we have an actual person born that needs supporting.

Personally, I'm open - s I've said - to that being a collective effort. But since everyone else seems to be fighting to separate the village from the baby... sure, let the biological parents pay.

I think that if the father doesn't want the child then he should be able to officially able to act as though the child was aborted and not be forced to take care of said child. That's no more cruel then an actual abortion.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think that if the father doesn't want the child then he should be able to officially able to act as though the child was aborted and not be forced to take care of said child.

Why? The child had been born by that point - it needs to be supported.

How do you suggest the child is supported instead?

That's no more cruel then an actual abortion.

Abortion isn't cruelty. The foetus never suffers.

So... you're objectively wrong.

[Grave_n_idle]

Such presents a severe double standard though.

If a woman can terminate a pregnancy unilaterally if she does not wish to carry to term, forcing the father to support a child he did not wish for is giving the woman one right while denying its equivalent to the father.

Equality goes both ways. 'Course, that is for a different thread... wonder if I should start one up...

If equality went both ways it would be called humanism not feminism.

It would be called feminism. It's not the topic of this thread, though.

[Bitely]

I think that if the father doesn't want the child then he should be able to officially able to act as though the child was aborted and not be forced to take care of said child.

Why? The child had been born by that point - it needs to be supported.

How do you suggest the child is supported instead?

That's no more cruel then an actual abortion.

Abortion isn't cruelty. The foetus never suffers.

So... you're objectively wrong.

Actually before first trimester the fetus can feel pain so...

And no the vary name feminism has negative connotations against men.

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually before first trimester the fetus can feel pain so...

Nope. Patently, objectively, and verifiably untrue.

Have you done literally no research on the subject before getting involved in the discussion?

A foetus doesn't have a coherent neural network - and thus can't actually feel pain - until about the end of 24 weeks.

The first trimester ends at the end of the 12th week.

A foetus MIGHT be able to feel pain AFTER the SECOND trimester, but that's not what you said.

And no the vary name feminism has negative connotations against men.

Off-topic. And wrong.

[Godular]

Such presents a severe double standard though.

If a woman can terminate a pregnancy unilaterally if she does not wish to carry to term, forcing the father to support a child he did not wish for is giving the woman one right while denying its equivalent to the father.

Women get to choose whether they carry a pregnancy to term because it happens in their own bodies. Men get the same right. That's not a double standard.

It is allowing the woman to do one thing unilaterally while not conferring an equivalent option for the father. In this case whose body is affected is irrelevant. It would be like giving a person half of the medical bill for treating a friend's broken leg just because they were in the same room when said broken leg was incurred, and being able to garnish wages to pay for said treatment.

How is this fair?

If the pregnancy is not aborted, both parents are going to be responsible for the offspring. Again, no double standard.

Yet if they choose as a couple that they are not ready, the child can be given up for adoption. If it can be done bilaterally, and the woman has a unilateral method of renouncing responsibility for a fetus, the father should have something comparable, rather than be forced to support a child he did not wish for.

Edited to place addendum: Such an option should only be available unilaterally while pregnancy is ongoing. 'S only fair.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is allowing the woman to do one thing unilaterally while not conferring an equivalent option for the father. In this case whose body is affected is irrelevant.

Nope. In fact, it's the ONLY relevant detail - so if your thought process doesn't account for it, you're just plain wrong.

It would be like giving a person half of the medical bill for treating a friend's broken leg just because they were in the same room when said broken leg was incurred, and being able to garnish wages to pay for said treatment.

It's nothing like that. At all.

Yet if they choose as a couple that they are not ready, the child can be given up for adoption.

Sure. After the full term of the pregnancy. Which is why adoption and abortion are totally different subjects.

If it can be done bilaterally, and the woman has a unilateral method of renouncing responsibility for a fetus, the father should have something comparable, rather than be forced to support a child he did not wish for.

I don't care about this thoretical guy's feelings. I'm entirely concerned with the offspring, here.

Once it's born (so comparisons to abortion are irrelevant) - someone is going to have to support it. I'm happy for the collective to do it, but absent that... you're offering no solutions.

[Bitely]

It is allowing the woman to do one thing unilaterally while not conferring an equivalent option for the father. In this case whose body is affected is irrelevant.

Nope. In fact, it's the ONLY relevant detail - so if your thought process doesn't account for it, you're just plain wrong.

It would be like giving a person half of the medical bill for treating a friend's broken leg just because they were in the same room when said broken leg was incurred, and being able to garnish wages to pay for said treatment.

It's nothing like that. At all.

Yet if they choose as a couple that they are not ready, the child can be given up for adoption.

Sure. After the full term of the pregnancy. Which is why adoption and abortion are totally different subjects.

If it can be done bilaterally, and the woman has a unilateral method of renouncing responsibility for a fetus, the father should have something comparable, rather than be forced to support a child he did not wish for.

I don't care about this thoretical guy's feelings. I'm entirely concerned with the offspring, here.

Once it's born (so comparisons to abortion are irrelevant) - someone is going to have to support it. I'm happy for the collective to do it, but absent that... you're offering no solutions.

So the father's feelings don't matter and a unborn baby doesnt matter? And pro-lifers are the bigots.

[Godular]

It is allowing the woman to do one thing unilaterally while not conferring an equivalent option for the father. In this case whose body is affected is irrelevant.

Nope. In fact, it's the ONLY relevant detail - so if your thought process doesn't account for it, you're just plain wrong.

Being forced to do something against one's will strikes me as the pertinent distinction.

It would be like giving a person half of the medical bill for treating a friend's broken leg just because they were in the same room when said broken leg was incurred, and being able to garnish wages to pay for said treatment.

It's nothing like that. At all.

Ah yes, I misspoke. It is like forcing the first person to assist financially in all the repercussions of the friend NOT getting treated for that broken leg, if any should occur.

Yet if they choose as a couple that they are not ready, the child can be given up for adoption.

Sure. After the full term of the pregnancy. Which is why adoption and abortion are totally different subjects.

If it can be done bilaterally, and the woman has a unilateral method of renouncing responsibility for a fetus, the father should have something comparable, rather than be forced to support a child he did not wish for.

I don't care about this thoretical guy's feelings. I'm entirely concerned with the offspring, here.

Once it's born (so comparisons to abortion are irrelevant) - someone is going to have to support it. I'm happy for the collective to do it, but absent that... you're offering no solutions.

As my addendum stated, my position focuses on when the pregnancy is ongoing, so in this case we would be arguing over different things as if such positions ran counter to each other.

[Bitely]

Nope. In fact, it's the ONLY relevant detail - so if your thought process doesn't account for it, you're just plain wrong.

Being forced to do something against one's will strikes me as the pertinent distinction.

It's nothing like that. At all.

Ah yes, I misspoke. It is like forcing the first person to assist financially in all the repercussions of the friend NOT getting treated for that broken leg, if any should occur.

Sure. After the full term of the pregnancy. Which is why adoption and abortion are totally different subjects.



I don't care about this thoretical guy's feelings. I'm entirely concerned with the offspring, here.

Once it's born (so comparisons to abortion are irrelevant) - someone is going to have to support it. I'm happy for the collective to do it, but absent that... you're offering no solutions.

As my addendum stated, my position focuses on when the pregnancy is ongoing, so in this case we would be arguing over different things as if such positions ran counter to each other.

I agree, if the father where to "abort" his baby prior to birth.

[Grave_n_idle]

So the father's feelings don't matter and a unborn baby doesnt matter? And pro-lifers are the bigots.

The father's feelings don't change whether the born child needs to eat, have a home, etc.

In that instance, the woman's feelings also don't matter.

That's not bigotry - that's the simple objective fact of existence - 'feelings' won't feed a hungry child.

[Bitely]

So the father's feelings don't matter and a unborn baby doesnt matter? And pro-lifers are the bigots.

The father's feelings don't change whether the born child needs to eat, have a home, etc.

In that instance, the woman's feelings also don't matter.

That's not bigotry - that's the simple objective fact of existence - 'feelings' won't feed a hungry child.

No because in this senario the father has legally declared before the birth that he has officially "aborted" said baby.

[Grave_n_idle]

Being forced to do something against one's will strikes me as the pertinent distinction.

That's okay, you've been wrong about a lot of other details, too.

Ah yes, I misspoke. It is like forcing the first person to assist financially in all the repercussions of the friend NOT getting treated for that broken leg, if any should occur.

Nope. Keep trying.

Maybe if the friend in your example had broken his friends leg? That might be a bit closer.

See. I'm helping.

As my addendum stated, my position focuses on when the pregnancy is ongoing, so in this case we would be arguing over different things as if such positions ran counter to each other.

Men already have an option to not go through pregnancy or childbirth. It's called 'being men'.

What you're talking about is being able to opt out of what comes AFTER the pregnancy. Your addendum is irrelevant.

[Grave_n_idle]

No because in this senario the father has legally declared before the birth that he has officially "aborted" said baby.

Does it fix the problem of the child being hungry and homeless?

If not - you're not offering a solution - you're just making excuses for 'men'.

[Bitely]

No because in this senario the father has legally declared before the birth that he has officially "aborted" said baby.

Does it fix the problem of the child being hungry and homeless?

If not - you're not offering a solution - you're just making excuses for 'men'.

I'm not going to waste anymore time. It's pointless. Pro-choice=pro-murder

[Ardavia]

Does it fix the problem of the child being hungry and homeless?

If not - you're not offering a solution - you're just making excuses for 'men'.

I'm not going to waste anymore time. It's pointless. Pro-choice=pro-murder

Nope.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.

Abortion isn't illegal.

[Galloism]

No because in this senario the father has legally declared before the birth that he has officially "aborted" said baby.

Does it fix the problem of the child being hungry and homeless?

If not - you're not offering a solution - you're just making excuses for 'men'.

You know, this wouldn't be near so sexist if it wasn't already possible for women to give up their responsibilities to their children after birth unilaterally and without question.

That little detail makes your opposition to men having the same rights as women extremely sexist.

[Grave_n_idle]

Does it fix the problem of the child being hungry and homeless?

If not - you're not offering a solution - you're just making excuses for 'men'.

I'm not going to waste anymore time. It's pointless. Pro-choice=pro-murder

Your appeal to emotion isn't just objectively wrong, it's also not impressing anyone.

Many pro-choice people are against abortion, they just believe that choice is not theirs to make for other people. Most pro-choice people oppose murder. You're wrong on literally every point.

Except one.

At least you realise you have been wasting your time.

[Grave_n_idle]

Does it fix the problem of the child being hungry and homeless?

If not - you're not offering a solution - you're just making excuses for 'men'.

You know, this wouldn't be near so sexist if it wasn't already possible for women to give up their responsibilities to their children after birth unilaterally and without question.

Do you mean adoption?