Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Galloism]

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?

There's single parent surrender for adoption (which has existed forever pretty much), where no consent from the father is needed, and there's also safe haven laws in all 50 states that allow a mother to unilaterally terminate both hers and fathers' rights and responsibilities to the child. In most states, there is no process for the father to recover those rights (even if he knows about it). Those laws are about a decade old, I think.

[Godular]

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.

Elucidate, if you would be so kind.

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.

No, the situation only requires that they both be involved in an activity with some risk of injury. Mountainclimbing for instance, or mayhap skydiving.

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'.

Now if only that were the sole ramification to the whole scenario.

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

It is quite relevant. The legal ramifications of an abortion, beyond the aspect of bodily sovereignty, should be explored further. Though I would consider this the subject for another thread. Think I'll write one up when I get home and don't have to rely on this iphone for typing.

[Baxten]

I'm not a supporter of abortion, but 2 reasons why I'm pro-choice

1. Even thought I don't agree with it, I can't forcibly control someone else's body. That is much more wrong in my opinion

2. I'm a man, so I don't have a very valid opinion on it, anyways

[Godular]

Do you mean adoption?

There's single parent surrender for adoption (which has existed forever pretty much), where no consent from the father is needed, and there's also safe haven laws in all 50 states that allow a mother to unilaterally terminate both hers and fathers' rights and responsibilities to the child. In most states, there is no process for the father to recover those rights (even if he knows about it). Those laws are about a decade old, I think.

Only a decade? Would have sworn it was longer.

[Galloism]

There's single parent surrender for adoption (which has existed forever pretty much), where no consent from the father is needed, and there's also safe haven laws in all 50 states that allow a mother to unilaterally terminate both hers and fathers' rights and responsibilities to the child. In most states, there is no process for the father to recover those rights (even if he knows about it). Those laws are about a decade old, I think.

Only a decade? Would have sworn it was longer.

So I looked it up, apparently Texas passed the first one in 1999. So 16 years for Texas. The rest filtered in over the next several years.

Incidentally, just as a general rule, if Texas is the first one to pass a law, the other states should pause and reflect before copying it.

[Godular]

Only a decade? Would have sworn it was longer.

So I looked it up, apparently Texas passed the first one in 1999. So 16 years for Texas. The rest filtered in over the next several years.

Incidentally, just as a general rule, if Texas is the first one to pass a law, the other states should pause and reflect before copying it.

I'm not sure whether I should be surprised that such things originated in a conservative state. Mayhap just another thing to file under 'pro-life shits not given about fate of child AFTER birth'?

[Ashmoria]

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?

yup

weird eh? once the baby is born it is its own person with its own rights to be supported by its parents.

go figure.

[Godular]

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?

yup

weird eh? once the baby is born it is its own person with its own rights to be supported by its parents.

go figure.

Except that even after birth, the mother can effectively go 'meh!' and legally absolve herself of that responsibility. Whyfor is the father to be denied this option?

[Ashmoria]

yup

weird eh? once the baby is born it is its own person with its own rights to be supported by its parents.

go figure.

Except that even after birth, the mother can effectively go 'meh!' and legally absolve herself of that responsibility. Whyfor is the father to be denied this option?

no she cant. she can, if she is desperate, drop off her baby at an authorized spot and the state will consider it abandoned safely. that is a measure designed to save the lives of babies. you can get rid of it, I suppose, but that means that certain babies will die.

it has been a long haul to get men full custody rights to their children born outside of a marriage. I don't know how many states are left where a woman can adopt out her baby without the father signing off on it too but they are fewer and fewer. they are mostly limited now to fathers who don't know they have a child let alone one up for adoption. this is where the real fight lies--in getting men the same rights to their children that women have--not in letting men abandon their children before they are even born.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you mean adoption?

There's single parent surrender for adoption (which has existed forever pretty much), where no consent from the father is needed, and there's also safe haven laws in all 50 states that allow a mother to unilaterally terminate both hers and fathers' rights and responsibilities to the child. In most states, there is no process for the father to recover those rights (even if he knows about it). Those laws are about a decade old, I think.

If you're talking adoption, I agree that both parents should have option to not relinquish the child.

Of course, there are problems with that scenario, too (which, again, go away if we raised kids collectively) - like what if the reason the mom wants to have the kid adopted is that she and the father can't afford it... but he fights adoption.. It's thorny, and sometimes all the available answers are a choice between least-bad.

[Izzyshipper]

Both, I suppose. You should, within reason, be able to pursue an abortion if you deem it necessary. However as a general rule it should be avoided as much as possible.

the only requirement to being pro-choice is that you leave the decision to the pregnant woman. what you like and don't like and what you think you would decide for yourself aren't important to the definition.

Which is why I qualified my answer, as well as providing my own personal ethics about it. Pro-life means to oppose abortion, not necessarily remove a woman's legal choice.

[Stellonia]

the only requirement to being pro-choice is that you leave the decision to the pregnant woman. what you like and don't like and what you think you would decide for yourself aren't important to the definition.

Which is why I qualified my answer, as well as providing my own personal ethics about it. Pro-life means to oppose abortion, not necessarily remove a woman's legal choice.

Not necessarily. It's possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time.

[Izzyshipper]

Which is why I qualified my answer, as well as providing my own personal ethics about it. Pro-life means to oppose abortion, not necessarily remove a woman's legal choice.

Not necessarily. It's possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time.

Yes, which is my point?

[KirbyFluffle]

Here is how I look at it:
Keeping the most humans alive in a sustainable way is my goal. If a fetus is not a human then there is no question about the legal status of abortion. If a fetus is a human then abortion is decreasing the number of living humans. So criminalizing abortion is the way to go because it would decrease the number of abortions and save more human lives, right? You would think that but women would resort to illegal abortions, many of which can end up killing them. So by criminalizing abortion, you have decreased the number of abortions and increased the amount of women dying, which would result in a net loss of human life. Therefore criminalizing abortion is not the way. To decrease abortion, the need for an abortion should be reduced. Some get an abortion because of financial problems. Others, because they feel they are not ready or because of the social stigma of being an unmarried pregnant woman or other unlisted reasons. To reduce these needs financial aid should be available and so should psychiatric help. There should also be a campaign to reduce the social stigma. However, all of these would not end all abortions. Therefore, the need for an abortion would be decreased even more if contraceptives and more comprehensive sex education was available. After all, a woman that isn't pregnant doesn't need an abortion. In conclusion, it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human or not. Criminalizing abortion would bring only more death.

Did I miss anything in my argument?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Only a decade? Would have sworn it was longer.

So I looked it up, apparently Texas passed the first one in 1999. So 16 years for Texas. The rest filtered in over the next several years.

Incidentally, just as a general rule, if Texas is the first one to pass a law, the other states should pause and reflect before copying it.

I think this is my favorite quote on NSG

[Sun Wukong]

Here is how I look at it:
Keeping the most humans alive in a sustainable way is my goal. If a fetus is not a human then there is no question about the legal status of abortion. If a fetus is a human then abortion is decreasing the number of living humans. So criminalizing abortion is the way to go because it would decrease the number of abortions and save more human lives, right? You would think that but women would resort to illegal abortions, many of which can end up killing them. So by criminalizing abortion, you have decreased the number of abortions and increased the amount of women dying, which would result in a net loss of human life. Therefore criminalizing abortion is not the way. To decrease abortion, the need for an abortion should be reduced. Some get an abortion because of financial problems. Others, because they feel they are not ready or because of the social stigma of being an unmarried pregnant woman or other unlisted reasons. To reduce these needs financial aid should be available and so should psychiatric help. There should also be a campaign to reduce the social stigma. However, all of these would not end all abortions. Therefore, the need for an abortion would be decreased even more if contraceptives and more comprehensive sex education was available. After all, a woman that isn't pregnant doesn't need an abortion. In conclusion, it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human or not. Criminalizing abortion would bring only more death.

Did I miss anything in my argument?

Just from a sheer math standpoint, I'm not sure if your logic is sound. You say criminalizing abortion would produce a net-loss of human lives, but I'm sure doing so would reduce the number of abortions somewhat, and the argument assumes the "humanity" of fetuses, so you would have to do a study to determine the ratio of women's lives lost relative to fetuses saved.

My guess would be it would go the other way.

I also take slight issue (not just with you but with a lot of people) using the term "human" or "alive" to mean "person." Because a fetus is alive (it consists of living cells), and human (they aren't chimpanzee cells), but these facts alone mean very little. They make it no more a person then a kidney is a person. So in the future maybe try to keep that in mind. Just a little pet peeve on my part.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Did I miss anything in my argument?

Just from a sheer math standpoint, I'm not sure if your logic is sound. You say criminalizing abortion would produce a net-loss of human lives, but I'm sure doing so would reduce the number of abortions somewhat, and the argument assumes the "humanity" of fetuses, so you would have to do a study to determine the ratio of women's lives lost relative to fetuses saved.

My guess would be it would go the other way.

I also take slight issue (not just with you but with a lot of people) using the term "human" or "alive" to mean "person." Because a fetus is alive (it consists of living cells), and human (they aren't chimpanzee cells), but these facts alone mean very little. They make it no more a person then a kidney is a person. So in the future maybe try to keep that in mind. Just a little pet peeve on my part.

Just an FYI - Criminalizing abortion does not lower the number of abortions. Women who have a lot of money leave the country, women who have some money find a private doctor or nurse who is willing to help, and women without money risk their lives. The few amount of women who won't have an abortion specifically because of the law will turn out to be fewer than the number of women who greatly injure themselves or die.

[Sun Wukong]

Just from a sheer math standpoint, I'm not sure if your logic is sound. You say criminalizing abortion would produce a net-loss of human lives, but I'm sure doing so would reduce the number of abortions somewhat, and the argument assumes the "humanity" of fetuses, so you would have to do a study to determine the ratio of women's lives lost relative to fetuses saved.

My guess would be it would go the other way.

I also take slight issue (not just with you but with a lot of people) using the term "human" or "alive" to mean "person." Because a fetus is alive (it consists of living cells), and human (they aren't chimpanzee cells), but these facts alone mean very little. They make it no more a person then a kidney is a person. So in the future maybe try to keep that in mind. Just a little pet peeve on my part.

Just an FYI - Criminalizing abortion does not lower the number of abortions. Women who have a lot of money leave the country, women who have some money find a private doctor or nurse who is willing to help, and women without money risk their lives. The few amount of women who won't have an abortion specifically because of the law will turn out to be fewer than the number of women who greatly injure themselves or die.

Citation.

Because I'm positive it would have a nonzero effect on the number of women seeking abortion.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Death or the deprivation of bodily sovereignty for nine months? Which sounds worse to you?

Deprivation of bodily sovereignty.

Live free or die. *nods toward New Hampshire*

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Just an FYI - Criminalizing abortion does not lower the number of abortions. Women who have a lot of money leave the country, women who have some money find a private doctor or nurse who is willing to help, and women without money risk their lives. The few amount of women who won't have an abortion specifically because of the law will turn out to be fewer than the number of women who greatly injure themselves or die.

Citation.

Because I'm positive it would have a nonzero effect on the number of women seeking abortion.

•Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is high, at 29 and 32 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and Latin America, respectively—regions where abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. In Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the abortion rate is 12 per 1,000.[1]
• Where abortion is legal on broad grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is illegal in most circumstances, it is generally unsafe. For example, in the United States, where abortion is legal on broad grounds, induced abortion results in 0.6 deaths per 100,000 procedures. In Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, abortion results in 30 and 460 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively.[2]

[The New Communist Order]

Pro-life.

[Ardavia]

Pro-life.

Could you elaborate on this position, perhaps?

[Ashmoria]

the only requirement to being pro-choice is that you leave the decision to the pregnant woman. what you like and don't like and what you think you would decide for yourself aren't important to the definition.

Which is why I qualified my answer, as well as providing my own personal ethics about it. Pro-life means to oppose abortion, not necessarily remove a woman's legal choice.

no. the key element of "pro-life" is to be in favor of restricting a womans right to choose abortion. few pro-choice people LIKE abortion (which doesn't mean that most aren't happy that women can freely choose abortion) but the key element to being "pro-choice" is not wanting to restrict women's access to abortion.

[Adarash]

This is always an interesting topic to debate...

When deciding if a country is to be pro-life or pro-choice, you have to really look at your government structure, economy, civil right, and political freedoms. As an example, I will use Nazi-Germany(I do not support Adolf Hitler and/or his decisions, follower, era, or genocide of any kind) and Modern-America.
Germany was a dictatorship. Therefore, Adolf would not care about civil rights or political freedoms. His decision would be based off of an economic outlook, how he would choose his government to respond, and personal beliefs. Economically, he might charge a fee to abort children. Other than that, he relies on his own opinions to choose.
America is a democracy(...or so we say...), which gives power to the people and not just the government. Economically, we might charge a fee to abort children. But on another hand, America prides itself in a well collected and agreed upon rights system. This would make for the government to say: Is it considered murder? Of course, this is where the president and the judges say, No. Therefore, America gives us the freedom to abort a child.
Some countries could even argue: "When it is still an egg, and has not developed a brain yet, it cannot be considered human. It lacks a key organ. But when it has formed the three most vital organs(brain, lungs, and heart), it can be considered human and therefore be murder." When a group of people get together(here) and try to make sense out of such a debate, it can cut deep.
My religion says a child is a gift from God(I'm a Christian) and a life from the moment its parent was born(since it was an egg). Then, someone can tell me that they are an Atheist, there is no God, therefore my response is invalid and is void from the debate. So when trying to fnd the right answer, you will find out when you die.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

This is always an interesting topic to debate...

When deciding if a country is to be pro-life or pro-choice, you have to really look at your government structure, economy, civil right, and political freedoms. As an example, I will use Nazi-Germany(I do not support Adolf Hitler and/or his decisions, follower, era, or genocide of any kind) and Modern-America.
Germany was a dictatorship. Therefore, Adolf would not care about civil rights or political freedoms. His decision would be based off of an economic outlook, how he would choose his government to respond, and personal beliefs. Economically, he might charge a fee to abort children. Other than that, he relies on his own opinions to choose.
America is a democracy(...or so we say...), which gives power to the people and not just the government. Economically, we might charge a fee to abort children. But on another hand, America prides itself in a well collected and agreed upon rights system. This would make for the government to say: Is it considered murder? Of course, this is where the president and the judges say, No. Therefore, America gives us the freedom to abort a child.
Some countries could even argue: "When it is still an egg, and has not developed a brain yet, it cannot be considered human. It lacks a key organ. But when it has formed the three most vital organs(brain, lungs, and heart), it can be considered human and therefore be murder." When a group of people get together(here) and try to make sense out of such a debate, it can cut deep.
My religion says a child is a gift from God(I'm a Christian) and a life from the moment its parent was born(since it was an egg). Then, someone can tell me that they are an Atheist, there is no God, therefore my response is invalid and is void from the debate. So when trying to fnd the right answer, you will find out when you die.

It literally has nothing to do with any of that.